[mavrc]

I was there too. People always say this, but just because a thing changed once does not mean it will happen again. In this case, the population scale alone has changed by over an order of magnitude.

Just doing some quick searching - the first numbers that come up when you search for "how many people used the internet in the year 2000" are on the order of 350 million or so. Comparatively, now, in 2023, Reddit alone has some 450 million users. It would seem right now that Tiktok has about three times the number of active users than there were total Internet users 23 years ago.

Additionally, there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars now resting on Chrome remaining the dominant browser.

Short of government intervention (or absolutely monumental fuckup on Google's part somehow), Chrome is here to stay.

[ploum]

Yes. The solution is very simple: uninstall Chrome and Chromium.

We are the people with the most influence on the tech. We are prescriptors. We are legion.

– Yes but Chrome is a tad faster and I have my bookmarks and my favorites extension and blablablabla…

— Then you are the root cause of the problem. If you are not ready to sacrifice an ounce of comfort to save the web, then you are the one killing the web.

Simple: install Firefox. Now.

(oh, and, by the way, also removes google analytics and all google trackers from the websites under your control. That’s surprizingly easy to do and a huge blow in Google monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives)

[pmlnr]

> There are plenty of alternatives

Yeah, not for long. Go back and read the proposed changes.

[Buttons840]

Please explain what you mean. It sounds like you have an important point that can only be found if people sit and carefully read several pages. Important points deserve to be stated more plainly.

[saurik]

The entire point of this spec is that your alternative browser wouldn't be able to attest to its "integrity" unless it was exactly as locked down as the other ones. If you have some kind of rebuttal to the shared context we all otherwise have, maybe you should be the one forced to state it more plainly.

[Buttons840]

Okay, so you're not saying that we're going to lose the ability to use another browser, just that the other browsers might not be good for much.

I think the comment you originally replied to is trying to say "use the other browsers, even if they are not good for much".

[caddy]

For google analytics and the like there are a lot of alternatives to be fair, I've started using Simple Analytics on all my sites.

[eastbound]

> The solution is very simple: uninstall Chrome and Chromium.

No. Firefox, beyond being slower, also keeps constantly displaying ads… for itself. Want to open a new tab? “Big Browser cares about your privacy, read how!” I just want to open a new tab!!! I’m working! Restarting? “Discover what’s new with Firefox”, “Hohoho, we care about your privacy, LOOK HOW MUCH WE CARE! ALSO WE HAVE NO ADS!” Worse, they suggest to solve privacy that I use Mozilla VPN. VPNs don’t solve privacy. Also, it’s a paid ad for a paid product.

Mozilla had also a staunch political slant, going as far as firing a CEO for a donation he made to the opposing group years ago. There is nothing neutral here, if you are not a leftist, it’s dangerous to use or even give your participation to that ecosystem.

Mozilla has failed to become the no-ads, better-ethics, privacy-aware navigator (pun intended). They keep performing worse actions than Google all the time.

[Lev1a]

> Firefox, beyond being slower, also keeps constantly displaying ads

One tab with an ad opening when the browser has updated every few weeks or so is not what I would call "keeps constantly displaying ads".

[michaelmrose]

There isn't a moral dimension attached to loving the right kind of people and gay and straight people are equally moral in pursuing relationships with significant others. On the other hand there is a moral dimension to trying to take away our fellow citizens rights. The CEO as the face of the org became unsuitable to his role when he acted publicly and objectively immorally in support of those who would gut the rights of his fellows

He wasn't on the wrong side of a political issue he was on the wrong side of decency and morality. This ought not to be a leftist position nor should we fear that the tyranny of excessive concern for others may be imposed upon us. Should we decide to use Firefox for evil as it were the privacy both endorsed and adhered to by Mozilla precludes them discovering it let alone stopping us.

The position of user of Firefox and public face of Firefox are inherently different positions and come with different reasonable expectations but I think you knew that.

> it’s dangerous to use or even give your participation to that ecosystem.

Please describe precisely the threat model you fill most applicable

> keeps constantly displaying ads

For a definition of constantly redefined to mean rarely when a new major version comes out.

> They keep performing worse actions than Google all the time.

The context here is that google tracks everything you do and regularly shares it with the government including under terms that are obviously abusive of user privacy and including to repressive governments, are in the middle of attempting to destroy ad blocking by pushing locked down environments in the name of security. A move likely to have massive implications that will be impossible to manage or control in repressive dictatorships even if Google themselves do nothing to directly assist with mass surveillance in Orwellian states. Merely building general purpose tools virtually guarantees bad usage by repressive regimes. By contrast Mozilla has? Tried to pimp their VPN to you as part of their new version notification...

It really sounds like the Brenden Eich debacle has colored your perception of the situation and perhaps you need to step back and evaluate the situation objectively.

[knewter]

Brendan Eich getting fired was like watching the original internet get murdered by progressives. Everything since then has been about how I thought that would go.

[michaelmrose]

He spent money to promote misusing a legal process to as it turns out illegally take his fellow citizens rights away.

Why do you think that's acceptable?

[knewter]

A guy gave a $3100 dollars to a political cause of his choice that was on the ballot, and people with this ideology drove him out of the company he founded that fought very hard for internet freedoms.

Since then, Mozilla/Firefox has largely become irrelevant and absolutely no longer has the same privacy concerns and respects.

He donated money in opposition of a law he didn't want to pass. He didn't take anyone's rights away.

[notpushkin]

https://waterfox.net/ to the rescue.

[turquoisevar]

Surely you don't mean Waterfox that states in their FAQ[0]:

"Who owns Waterfox?"

"System1 now own Waterfox, but Alex Kontos is still leading the direction of Waterfox and will be for the foreseeable future."

And who's owner, System1, states at the top of their page[1]:

"System1 operates the most dynamic Responsive Acquisition Marketing Platform

Connecting high intent customers with advertisers at scale"

[0]: https://www.waterfox.net/docs/faq#5-who-owns-waterfox [1]: https://system1.com

[willywanker]

Get with the times, Waterfox is independent of System 1 now. https://www.waterfox.net/blog/2023/07/03/a-new-chapter-for-w...

[notpushkin]

I surely do mean exactly that particular Waterfox. I've had my fair share of concerns back in the day when System1 acqui(hi)red Waterfox, but I haven't seen any suspicious behaviour whatsoever so I'm pretty confident it's fine for the time being.

Of course, if you know a better browser (that is not Chromium-based), I'll be happy to hear your suggestions!

[Dalewyn]

>Simple: install Firefox. Now.

No.

[smoppi]

>I was there too. People always say this, but just because a thing changed once does not mean it will happen again.

The problem is that the web standards have now grown so much that it is impossible to write a complete new web browser from scratch. Firefox is not coming back, because Mozilla seems to prioritize other things than code quality and the actual usability of their software.

And yes, I know that the SerenityOS developers are trying to do it, but while some very advanced things work "good enough" in their browser so that Twitter and Discord's web client works to some extent, the more basic things are so broken that their browser cannot even render basic HTML 3.2 sites properly.

Google's end goal is probably to "deprecate" HTTP 1.x and force everyone into using their own replacement for the protocol. Their protocol is going to be like the thing they call "HTTP2", an insanely complex protocol that is impossible to implement by a small developer team. In the end their own protocol becomes a "rolling release" protocol that only works with Google's own app, at which point they can completely stop releasing RFCs for it.

[pmlnr]

No, I get it. I can't see a blackout day happening (the one stopped SOPA/PIPA) again either.

But it still happened, against M$, who was the behemoth of the time, so things are never impossible.