• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    23
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    We need a serious effort to fork Firefox that can be maintained as a sustainable open source project. I know there are a few forks floating around, but they’re small projects with only a handful of contributors. These kinds of efforts will never be a serious alternative.

    A web browser is one of the most important pieces of software nowadays, and currently neither Chromium nor Firefox are true community efforts. We need something on the level of the Linux Kernel Foundation in my opinion.

    • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
      link
      92 years ago

      Just to add and remind, the amount of LOC and work in a web browser and its engine is more than Linux kernel itself at this point. This goes for both Gecko and Blink/WebKit browsers.

      People underestimate the amount of work put in modern web browsers. They are ecosystems at this point.

      • @nutomicA
        link
        02 years ago

        Thats because todays browsers are way too bloated. A fork that trims unnecessary features could be very effective.

        • @sproid
          link
          42 years ago

          There are browsers that try that only to have broken websites left and right. cough*(GNOME Web)

        • @Yujiri
          link
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

          • @nutomicA
            link
            22 years ago

            Its not only about the protocols, Firefox also has other useless features, like the integrated Pocket addon and probably more.

        • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
          link
          02 years ago

          There exist things like NetSurf. Or, remove JS execution from web browsers, and now you have un-bloated web browser that cannot access… 80% of clearnet, and cannot comment on Lemmy.

          There have been ideas explored in this direction, like Gemini and Gopher protocols. Some people use them.

    • @morrowindOP
      link
      32 years ago

      If you want something like the linux kernel, then those forks also have to be profitable enough to support firefox.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        52 years ago

        Or to get enough community funding as non-profit. The whole problem with Mozilla is precisely that it depends on profit and it’s driven by accountants.

    • @GenkiFeral
      link
      -32 years ago

      If the Freedom Convoy truckers could raise $10 million to keep their rights, seems like a browser could. The things a browser and search engine know about you is …well, almost everything. I think many of us would lay down and die if all of our history was made public. I would. Some people would be willing to pay large sums in blackmail money to keep it private.

      • @olive
        link
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        deleted by creator

  • @morrowindOP
    link
    212 years ago

    Many people are upset about this, but it is in my opinion an excellent thing. Mozilla and Facebook are working together to improve one aspect of Facebook’s privacy

    It’s not like Mozilla is shilling and getting paid off, as some people seem to think.

    This is how privacy is really improved, by working with the companies and governments that have power in the space, not by sitting in your cave using only librewolf and tor, and refusing to use anything you don’t build from source and self host.

    That only helps you at best, and the privacy abusers (google, facebook) will just ignore you.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism
      link
      152 years ago

      I see it as on the same level of a vegan advocacy organisation working with one of the biggest meat companies in the world. Sure, the vegan org might reduce the suffering of the animals under their control, but that shouldn’t be their goal, complete abolishment of animal agriculture should be.

      • @morrowindOP
        link
        122 years ago

        It’s an apt comparison, but do you want complete abolishment of all forms of telemetry, tracking or advertising? Or perhaps more relevant, is that Mozilla’s goal? I don’t think so. See this post by them.

        • @sasalzig
          link
          62 years ago

          Yes, yes and yes. And Mozilla have been selling out their user’s data since the day they took money from Google.

          This is honestly what annoys me more than anything about Mozilla: they pretend to be champions for privacy, but they aren’t. And people fall for it. They are controlled opposition. They are the social democrats of the privacy world: channeling privacy supporters into their compromise (and compromised) position and painting the radicals as unreasonable dreamers.

          If they were to finally die, that would probably be good for online privacy. A real non-corrupt free software fork of chromium could take off with built-in ad blocking and actually good privacy defaults. Firefox is sucking the oxygen out of the room right now.

          Ultimately all tracking and data collecting besides what’s absolutely necessary needs to be declared 100% illegal. I have no hope Mozilla will help in this fight at all.

          • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
            link
            12 years ago

            Starting from paragraph 2, I could replace “Mozilla” and “chromium” vice versa and your comment would actually hold true.

            • @sasalzig
              link
              12 years ago

              I just think that when Firefox dies, maintaining a chromium fork with Google tracking crap ripped out is going to be way easier than continuing development on Firefox, and can be done by way fewer people.

              • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
                link
                -12 years ago

                Firefox will take down Tor Project with it. Chromium/Blink is that bad. Also, Firefox allows user.js and userchrome.css modifications, something unparalleled in Blink/WebKit world.

                Firefox is not going anywhere. Google is scared of antitrust and antimonopoly lawsuits.

        • @obbeel
          link
          32 years ago

          Is it Mozilla’s goal?

          2020’s Unfck the Internet, by Mozilla:

          "A whole sh*tton of how we communicate is controlled by a few centi-billionaires. That’s a new word for all of us: centi-billionaire. It means worth over $100 billion USD. Each.

          Social networks are using us as much as we use them. They slice and dice us into categories to get micro-targeted. Newsflash: people aren’t “targets” and it’s not cool to create little bubbles.

          Oh and security. If you’re sick of reading about — and getting caught in — one data breach after another, we feel you.

          If you want to get out of this mess, we are with you. Mozilla, the not-for-profit behind Firefox, was purpose-built to make the internet what it can be: an open tool for everyone — the powerful and the weak, the right and the left, everyone."

          https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/how-to-unfck/

          • @morrowindOP
            link
            12 years ago

            I mean of course, Mozilla’s goal has always been to create a better internet, but I don’t think that they think that means removing all telemetry, advertising etc.

      • @GenkiFeral
        link
        32 years ago

        I am vegan and must hope any lessening of suffering happens. I hate hunting, but know that a dairy cow is far more likely to suffer far more than a deer a hunter shot. I’d be willing to negotiate if I knew i could lessen the problem. Case by case, of course. All-or-nothing might make the individual feel holier-than-thou, but the problem is just as bad as before. Idealism is not the same as realism. I’d argue that both can be done - diminish a problem by offering some solutions, but go right back by trying to eliminate that problem.

      • @esi
        link
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        deleted by creator

        • @morrowindOP
          link
          22 years ago

          I agree with you, but this is lemmy, and the majority see radical change as the only way.

    • @kixik
      link
      42 years ago

      I don’t know, but FF, although having nice options for privacy, don’t set them by default, leaving the user to go investigate what to set and whatnot… And adds is a sensitive topic, though it’s understandable they want to make money…

      That’s why I use instead Librewolf, which is pretty much FF with sane settings by default (actually I have to modify some not allowing me to use the browser under some scenarios), and removing binary blobs (FF still includes binary blobs). For Librewolf, the other nice thing is that it comes with uBlock-Origin by default, however it might be it’ll be harder for uBlock to actually block new ways of adds…

      • @morrowindOP
        link
        32 years ago

        You missed the point, it’s not about firefox.

        • @kixik
          link
          12 years ago

          Yea, well, I don’t trust Facebook/Meta any bit, and although mozilla can teach them a few more ethical things, as I don’t trust such partner it’s dealing with, then I get suspicious, and I don’t know if the end result will be also included on FF, since its sort of a web spec, and as said, FF tend to make sane privacy options not the default, and not so obvious, which hadn’t stopped me from using it, I just use Librewolf which is pretty close, it’s a derivative with sane defaults for privacy, and I hope if the spec materializes, and becomes part of FF, there’s a way on Librewolf to opt it out by default, or make it more obvious, or at least helped somehow by uBlock… We’ll see …

    • मुक्त
      link
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      How is that supposed to work? Firefox’s own products in itself are not that reassuring for user privacy. It was better when Moxie collaborated with them to improve whatsapp code. At least that guy’s products were respected for privacy at that time.

      • @morrowindOP
        link
        52 years ago

        Even if they don’t live up to your standards, you can agree they are way ahead of the competition.

          • @morrowindOP
            link
            02 years ago

            Yeah, chrome, edge and safari, though safari’s not half bad.

          • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
            link
            -12 years ago

            Does Chrome allow editable user.js and userchrome.css? Does Chrome not leak IPs via WebRTC? Is Chrome used as base for Tor Browser?

  • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
    link
    182 years ago

    My eyes also popped out of my sockets, so I read the Mozilla blog source article. It is just a proposal to W3C, as it stands. And since this is NOT something proprietary like FLoC and particularly NOT meant as an alternative tracking method, there seems to be more to it than what the anti Mozilla and pro Chromium squads want to believe.

    Why is this reactionary attitude going on? It happened with the “deplatforming” article, and now this.

    How many people are not okay with USA Big Tech corpos submitting patches to Linux kernel? Did you stop using Linux and choose… Windows or MacOS due to it?

    • @morrowindOP
      link
      92 years ago

      I don’t think there’s any anti-mozilla, pro-chromium squads roaming the wilds, but yeah, Mozilla has not fallen, they’re just working on a spec, with engineers from facebook, to enhance privacy.

      The reason why I said it’s a good thing: do you honestly trust the likes of facebook/google to design something privacy oriented, even if their intentions are entirely honest? No, of course not. Regardless of their intention, they have been built, as companies on principles opposing such design. They had to be. They don’t have the people, the experience, the methodology, the principles etc.

      So it’s great to see them joined by someone who does (Mozilla) who I’m sure they’ll respect if they want to have the proposal accepted not just by W3C, but the greater community.

      • @TheAnonymouseJokerM
        link
        02 years ago

        GrapheneOS squad, for example, is anti Mozilla and pro Chromium, and is a massive internet troll group. There are some anti Mozilla stans with Chromium based recommendations on Lemmy doing the rounds too.

        • Jay Baker (he/they)
          link
          32 years ago

          What makes me laugh is the fact that many anti-Mozilla Foundation folks are pro-Brave. Yes: pro-Brendan Eich. We know what that means.

    • @sasalzig
      link
      72 years ago

      Linux accepting patches from Facebook that improves btrfs isn’t the same thing as working with Facebook on ad tech tracking proposals.

      I haven’t read the thing and I’ll be waiting for someone decently trustworthy to explain this to me, but I consider tracking and advertising to be immoral, so this doesn’t bode well.

      • @olive
        link
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        deleted by creator

  • Vegafjord eo
    link
    172 years ago

    Facebook’s business model is to manipulate and study us for profit. It’s like a tobacco company. If facebook collect less data or no data, their business will collapse. The interests of facebook are opposed to the interests of the people. There’s no way for them to become ethical because their model is based on something completely unethical.

    The only impact mozilla can have on facebook is to make sure that more people feel comfortable using facebook. This is done through their association with Mozilla and the creation and adoption of new orwellian terms.

    In other words, Mozilla is enabling Facebook. This is hideous.

    • @morrowindOP
      link
      22 years ago

      Not likely. Facebook would have done this with or without Mozilla (also the proposal is made by facebook/mozilla, but it’s for everyone), so Mozilla serves the part of the guiding hand.

  • @sproid
    link
    102 years ago

    Many of the responders are in negation that the projects and the internet runs with money 💵. All these privacy conscious companies are trying to find solutions to balance having Ads with everything else. Remember most people online wants or expects everything to be free as in free beer. Innovation and coordination requires the Ads companies, which are mainly Google or Facebook. What should be scrutinize is How they do it more than What they do, to the extent that is reasonable.

    • @GenkiFeral
      link
      22 years ago

      Curious, if every user paid a browser $5 a year for a subscription and every search engine $5 a year, would tht cover costs and allow for a small profit? I realize that depends on how many users there are, but seems like if we can put a pigs heart in a human and have the human live (poor, poor pig) and have a human walk on the moon that we’s be able to find a private way for the individual to browse the internet.

      We all deserve a salary for our work. But, what about profit? Are there shareholders, angel investors - how does the profit aspect of a browser or search engine work?

      Could users buy early shares to later be paid back with future users’ payments? The browser would have to accept anonymous users/payments - such as money orders or the equivalent, I think.

      • Geotechland
        link
        22 years ago

        This is a good question I also have. I think we do need to explore some monetization options. As an example, ads on youtube allowed for independent media to thrive. It was good.

        But youtube, or alphabet as a publicly traded company, wants more money than just to pay the creators. They gotta increase profit to please the shareholders so we are seeing more ads.

        I think we should normalize paying a subscription fee for content so that we don’t pay with it with our data. But it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Unless a creator or website is huge, not many ppl will subscribe for it initially. So what do creators or small websites do? Maybe there is room for ethical ads if we cant get enough users to pay or donate.

        • @sproid
          link
          12 years ago

          Not only the chicken and the egg problem but also the problem of having too many subscriptions. Nowadays the trend is subscription models : even note taking apps, Google Play Store, VPNs, Password managers, etc. Some are worth it but at some point is just too many.

    • @sproid
      link
      22 years ago

      These companies: Mozilla, Brave, Ubuntu/Canonical, etc.

    • @morrowindOP
      link
      12 years ago

      That’s true, though I’m not sure if Mozilla even intends to use this proposal they’re making.

  • @obbeel
    link
    52 years ago

    Fuck ads and fuck Mozilla. We need a modern alternative.

    • @GenkiFeral
      link
      12 years ago

      I’ve barely tried it and its mostly just text-based, but BadWolf works fine on my Debian XFCE. I am no techie, yet was able to install it, so I am sure most others could, too.

  • @YouLookGraphics
    link
    52 years ago

    Y’all, please stop and read this comment before jumping on your guns. I also saw this in Reddit and I’m just copy-pasting my comment from there.

    All Mozilla did was to just work with a group of ppl from Meta to create a proposal and send that proposal to the W3 Consortium. THAT’S IT. Nothing else. This isn’t public yet. It’s nothing more than a proposal.

  • Helix 🧬
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    If you can’t beat them, join them. Boycotting Facebook* would be a bad move for Mozilla since they wouldn’t be able to influence Facebook’s politics.

    * I refuse to call them meta, just like I refuse to call Google Alphabet. We shouldn’t let them get away with rebranding.

  • Evan
    link
    22 years ago

    No fucking way

  • Vegafjord eo
    link
    22 years ago

    Why dont we have alternatives to firefox?

    • @sproid
      link
      32 years ago

      More than the web browsers the focus is on the Browser engines. Even Microsoft found it difficult to maintain a Browser engine and now use Blink (Chromium(Google)).

  • @MattGade
    link
    -3
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • @Atahualpa
      link
      32 years ago

      Advocating for google on a privacy sub…