Actually, yes. Firefox is good but I hate the UI. Okay, Brave seems nice. Love the UI, sync feels slow, and why can I not move the top bar to the bottom on mobile????? Phones are BIG. Don't make it harder for me to use your product. Okay, there is Vivaldi, king of customisability. Nice, but feels slow. Back to Firefox. Still hate UI. And now wanting a better new tab page. Proceed to discover Tabliss for a good new tab page, and Firefox-UI-Fix on github to give me a better UI on Firefox desktop. Wow, problems solved. I'm sticking to Firefox forever (unless I decide to switch to Librewolf where I can still implement all the same fixes as on Firefox).
Yeah, but I'm on firefox and I'm happy. I have basically 0 issues. If I was on Brave, I would have still had to worry about disabling the crypto crap as well.
Moved to Firefox a while ago, specifically because of Manifest V3.
The only issue I've found so far is that you can't log in to PSN on it. Just locks the browser completely and you need to kill it in task manager. Apparently it's to do with password saving.
App Store requires all web access be rendered in safari
Any browser you get on IOS is Safari and so you are right that they could have extensions but it would be impossible for their old extensions to match up/everything has to be rewritten
Nope. Many Chromium forks already have very good inbuilt adblockers , which won't be affected by the MV3 stuff. On top of that, one could also use system-wide blockers such as AdGuard and DNS-level blockers (which is not even a bad idea if you're on Windows anyway).
Brave is wrapped up in so much controversy it feels like you're trolling that you called it a real browser. You're trolling, right? Have fun with your brave sponsored ads and crypto bullshit. Also you're still being lead by Google, but I guess that's okay because it's in a pretty wrapper.
Lol, as if Mozilla weren't keep alive by Google's money (which mainly come from ads, as well). Pathetic and laughable at once.
Use what you prefer and stop bothering me.
Google does keep Mozilla alive, but it wouldn't have to if it weren't a monopoly. Since it does monopolize the market, it has to keep Mozilla alive or face monopoly busting action. The money Google makes comes from ads, but not the money Mozilla makes.
Also, unlike you, my browser isn't directly controlled by Google's every whim.
They donate a lot to political campaigns that have nothing to do with technology or anything relevant. I use and love Firefox, but this is definitely questionable
that article reads like if my 8 year old nephew read thru my tax return. But no matter how mozilla spend their money, Google are spending money their money on much more questionable and unethical things.
from you're latest reply i can see you think : security shouldn't exist™
I'd help you with trademarking that
edit: are you trying to get me to find everyone stupid on lemmy because you lead me to find
kicksystem(at)lemmy.world i can certainly find a stupid person defending him too
Don't forget the worst most condescending people working for Brave. I actually had one of their people antagonize me on social media years ago for not liking their invasive homepage at the time.
Brave is an advertising company, that blocks everyone, but them.
So like very other ad company.
Forcing over people and companies into their system.
[citation needed]
The crypto stuff is opt-in.
[citation needed] I'm talking about the legal action stuff. Fun fact, Gab made a Brave fork called Dissenter. Nothing happened to them.
Yeah, Brave VPN is BS.
About Brendan Eich, I can’t see nothing about his beliefs reflecting in his work. Looks like he kept them separated. Also he's a co-founder of Mozilla. So if you’re not going to use Brave because of him. How can you use Firefox? About Brave lobbying against things like same-sex marriage. Will, [citation needed].
System wide ad blockers can't block a lot of ads, namely same-domain ads or those that are built into the html. Much rarer than the external page kind (DNS ones) thankfully.
As far as I know most inbuilt adblockers, don't work very well. Especially with yt. Everytime yt does something, you would probably have to wait for new version of your browser, and even then it is questionable if it would work. With ublock origin you just click on one button and you are good to go.
If somebody doesn't know, I'm talking about refreshing your filters.
I'll endorse whatever I feel like. And.. Inferior? Lol. Just looking at the retard UI of Firefox is enough for me (p.s., I've been a FF user for almost 20 year, since it still was Phoenix).
By the way, I'd be curious to know what would happen to FF if somewhat uBlock Origin disappeared. Equivalently, the only thing keeping FF alive (apart from sweet Google's money) is the existence of uBlock Origin, i.e. an independent extension created and maintained by volunteers. I'm pretty sure that the day uBO dies, is the day FF disappears
Yeah surel, I'll use the inadequate browser but fox the problems with system wide ad blockers, instead of just using a browser, that doesn't steal my data and let's me install addons that I want. Google is way out of bounds here imho.
Use whatever suits you. I'm just saying that people already using browsers with a built-in AdBlock aren't going to switch, because they won't even notice the MV3 stuff.
IIRC, ABP used to whiteliste some "acceptable" ads (non invasive, etc...). Frankly, it's been literally ages since I have used it, so I don't know how they behave right now. I was referring to AdGuard as a system-wide adblocker, though, which is a completely different story.
As long as these browsers themselves exist. Inbuilt adblockers aren't extension, are integral parts of the browsers, and don't need to follow extensions' rules.