| > Once you're seen as hostile, you'll see countermeasures applied that target you. You don't get to act with impunity This is already the case for uBlock Origin and filtering extensions in general. Sites deploy blocker blockers. Users deploy blocker blocker blockers. It's a never-ending arms race at this point. > and since Firefox is not coming from a place of power (their market share isn't enough to force the issue), Firefox will take a lot of damage. Possibly enough to kill it as a choice for most people. It doesn't have to force anything. It just has to keep working despite any interference. If uBlock Origin can get away with it, surely Firefox can too. > Think about it, even if the actual API space is identical in usage and result, there will still be differences in how the underlying code run, with differing performance and timing characteristics. Surely there are ways to mitigate these side channel attacks. If it can be done in other systems, it can be done in the browser as well. > Without throwing away all performance criteria for everything and relying on other browsers to as well It doesn't mean throwing away performance, it means matching the performance and output of the more popular browsers. > But they do care about Firefox affecting ~7% of people visiting, and if Facebook and a few other high profile sites both ban Firefox and start up with their own rhetoric and narrative about Firefox, Firefox is dead. Probably not. We already have at least one browser with ad blocker included and enabled by default even on mobile: Brave browser. It doesn't just block ads, it replaces them with its own advertising system in order to steal their market share. Not sure if it's possible to be more hostile than this and yet Brave browser is growing. |