[bloppe]

That's not the only extension Firefox still allows that's blocked in Chrome. FF also blocks 3rd party cookies and has shown no interest in Google's "privacy sandbox" tracking features. Funny how much better a browser can be without a massive conflict of interest

[lolinder]

I agree with you that Firefox is better, but it's not for lack of conflict of interest. No browser that is funded by any means other than user payments or donations is going to be free of a conflict of interest, and in Firefox's case Google funds them.

[bloppe]

Sure, but it matters why Google is funding them. Google funds Mozilla in order to keep them afloat as a foil to detract from antitrust scrutiny. That's only credible if Google does not exert any kind of pressure over them as a condition for that funding. If they did exert that kind of pressure, it would completely defeat the purpose of funding them in the first place.

So I don't consider that to create a conflict of interest.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Mozilla drags its feet on browser improvements to appease the overlord.

[ringeryless]

Mozilla config makes the old Windows registry look logically organized and named.

(try to disable cache, for example...)

i am unclear if Google merely counts on Mozilla acting like a reincarnation of the living-fossil that is the Apache foundation, or if their money steers this.