[Nextgrid]

I call BS on Mozilla's commitment to privacy until uBlock Origin (or equivalent) is built into Firefox.

Nowadays running a browser without an ad blocker is as irresponsible as running a Windows XP machine without antivirus nor firewall a decade ago.

Any browser that doesn't implement countermeasures that have been proven to be effective and are available free of charge under a permissive license should be considered defective or having ulterior motives.

[sciurus]

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... has been built-in for nearly two years, and new privacy-protecting features are frequently being added.

(Disclosure: I work for Mozilla but not on this)

[Nextgrid]

This is nowhere near enough though, and it used to be even worse. Basic spyware such as Google Analytics could be blocked by uBlock for ages and yet it's only recently that the built-in Firefox solution started blocking it (by replacing it with a neutered shim).

Furthermore, considering uBlock Origin and the underlying filter lists are available under a permissive license, what's the point behind developing & maintaining your own (inferior) implementation?

[lolrepeatlol]

You have to realize Mozilla does not have the marketshare to do this. Most of the web relies on ads, and since uBlock Origin blocks them, there would be no incentive for those sites to support Firefox.

Even if you just blocked trackers (as does ETP Strict Mode), many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them. This, again, would cause there to be little to no incentive for most website owners to support Firefox.

What Mozilla is currently doing makes sense. They are being lax on the standard setting so that websites can still make ad revenue and have an incentive to support the browser.

If Firefox had a lot more marketshare, it might have been possible that this could slide.

[apostacy]

I would assert that the exact opposite is true. Taking a strong stand in favor of users would increase their market share.

Over a decade ago, one of the best things that Firefox did to compete against IE6 was to include a built in popup blocker that was on by default. Exactly the same criticisms were made.

It was called irresponsible and disruptive, since so much revenue came from popups, and horrible flash-based full screen pop-under ads. But I am glad that Firefox didn't let the pleas of the established market prevent them from siding with users.

[lolrepeatlol]

Over a decade ago, it was also possible to start a new browser engine from scratch. Now since the web is so complex, it's virtually impossible to make one nowadays.

I don't think you can compare the web of a decade ago to the web of now.

[apostacy]

The problem is essentially the same. I did not say they should start a new browser engine. I think that if Mozilla was as willing to take risks as they were before, they would win over users. The difference is that before they were willing to risk annoying the big fish. Now they are afraid of upsetting Netflix or Google.

And I don't think they will be able to make progress if they refuse to challenge existing web technologies. They could do it, but they won't.

In fact, Mozilla seems terrified of losing favor with any of the major platforms. Which means that they are beholden to them.

[Nextgrid]

Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs?

> many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them

uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors.

[lolrepeatlol]

> Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs?

You'd be surprised. Apple Business Manager does not support Firefox, for example.

> uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors.

My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue.

[Nextgrid]

> My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue.

Blocking ads would be the point - ads are malware.

[INTPenis]

So which browser do you prefer?

[Nextgrid]

I run Safari & Firefox.

FF is still the "least bad" choice but I'm still not happy that I have to fix it by installing an add-on where that add-on (or at least the core parts of it such as filter lists) are licensed in a way that would allow the browser to have this fix out of the box.