Reminder to switch browsers if you haven’t already!


  • Google Chrome is starting to phase out older, more capable ad blocking extensions in favor of the more limited Manifest V3 system.
  • The Manifest V3 system has been criticized by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation for restricting the capabilities of web extensions.
  • Google has made concessions to Manifest V3, but limitations on content filtering remain a source of skepticism and concern.
    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Pretty great outcome for firefox really.

      I don’t think firefox numbers will get a huge & immediate bump, but I think that over time it will support a reputation for firefox as being cool different and just plain better.

      I can’t imagine raw-dogging the internet without an ad blocker in 2024. I’m aware that most people aren’t bothered by ads, but surely… surely some people might be interested in blocking them if they become aware that it’s possible and easy.

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m sorry. I’ve seen this so many times today and I can’t stand it anymore.

    I hate this article photo. What the fuck is that shit?? Gloveless fingers? Digit warmer? Turtlefinger sweater?

  • tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    6 months ago

    I use Firefox everywhere which means I have ads blocking everywhere, including and especially on Android. All my tabs are synced and are easily transferred between devices.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      While I dont use Firefox itself any more I am using librewolf on my PC, which sadly doesnt exist for phones yet. Also, GOS comes with its own privacy oriented chromium fork called vanadium, so I’m using that in the mean time.

      • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        I also use librewolf and have settled for iceraven on my phone. the list of installable extensions is much longer (even if not everything is working yet, depending on how far mozilla has come along) and it has about:config support, which gives me a pretty close approximation of my desktop browser.

      • Nelots@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’ve found the Mull browser (which can be found through the DivestOS repository on F-Droid) works great as a privacy-focused firefox fork, similar to LibreWolf. I hear Fennic F-Droid is also a pretty good but less extreme alternative, but I’d imagine you don’t care much about that if you use LibreWolf.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      6 months ago

      If we want to be honest, Firefox on Android has way worse performance than Chrome.

      (But I still use it instead of Chrome)

        • Macros@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          I use it on a Pixel 5 and even there it is fluid while browsing. Only on Youtube there is the slightest stutter for HD Videos. Heavy sites like Discourse fora or Cryptpad or such work flawlessly.

        • sheogorath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I use both on a Galaxy Fold 5 and can confirm Chromium based browsers are smoother. Although I still use Waterfox on my phone. I just keep a Chromium based browsers in case a website doesn’t work when I visited it using Waterfox.

      • tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        It depends I think. I found Chrome to be a tiny bit faster but then ads bogged the page down so most of the time, Firefox is faster for me.

        In some very rare cases when I need to disable ads blocking, Chrome is indeed faster but I’d rather abandon websites rather than disable ads blocking.

        So if you love ads, Chrome is better. If you hate ads like I do, Firefox is miles ahead.

        • JWBananas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          There are other ways to block ads. Adguard does a great job on Android. It establishes a local VPN, so it can do HTTP[S] content filtering in addition to DNS blocking.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Can’t use my VPN and adguard at the same time iirc, unless android has two active VPN “slots” now. Can’t bring a pihole with me 24/7 either as much as I would like to.

                • Cyberpunk3000@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Yes because there is no need to setup another VPN. You only configure the DNS settings (Private DNS). I know that Mullvad on PC has an option to use custom DNS server

    • huquad@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Firefox is a good option.

    But I will raise people one more. Waterfox. Been using it for over a year now and enjoy it.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Firefox’s marketshare is small enough relative to Chrome’s that some websites might just block it at this point, if Chrome users mean ad revenue and Firefox users don’t.

      https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

      Firefox has 2.88% marketshare.

      Chrome has 65.34% marketshare.

      It’s gonna be interesting to see what happens…

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        6 months ago

        It doesn’t necessary cost a meaningful amount to a site to allow Firefox users to view it; it does however cost to make it compatible with non-chromium browsers. For most viewing that’s a non issue (I mean, most crms are going to work) but specific sites might stop working (YouTube already got caught throttling firefox, and tbf, streaming would cost more than reading an article or something).

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        6 months ago

        Firefox blocks statcounter tracking by default. It’s an inherently flawed metric, though Firefox is definitely in the minority still vs Chrome

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        The numbers may be indicative of the general trend, but every single privacy oriented browser and so forth is spoofing the user agent, pretending to be the most widespread and popular os and browser.

        Which is why privacy checks on my Linux+librewolf PC return win10 with chrome.

      • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        My worry is what the EU changes might mean for the mobile web and beyond. With iOS’s market share and only the same rendering engine Apple used in Safari being available, sites/apps had to support more than just Chrome. If forcing iOS users to Chrome is an option (either through pointing them to the browser or an app built with that rendering engine), then there’s even less of an incentive to test with anything else. It’s great that users get more choice but if providers use it as an opportunity to reduce support for other browsers then it might not be a great benefit after all.

    • tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      But I will raise people one more. Waterfox

      Never heard of it, I prefer LibreWolf
      https://librewolf.net/#what-is-librewolf

      but I’m gonna list some other popular forks

      TOR Browser (anti-censorship enhanced fork, bundled with TOR network)
      https://www.torproject.org/

      GNUzilla IceCat (GNU version)
      https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

      Pale Moon (able to use old XUL based extensions)
      https://www.palemoon.org/

      Mullvad Browser (a security hardened fork, IIRC based on TOR, made by Mullvad VPN company)
      https://mullvad.net/en/browser

      ANDROID (Fennec/Fenix)

      Fennec F-Droid (Fennec version available on F-Droid, clean of propietary blobs)
      https://f-droid.org/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/
      https://gitlab.com/relan/fennecbuild

      Mull (hardened fork of Fenix)
      https://gitlab.com/divested-mobile/mull-fenix

      IceRaven (yet another hardened fork of Fenix, able to install an extended list of extensions)
      https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser

  • resetbypeer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well I will sound like an old bore but throughout the nearly 20 years Firefox is out I never looked at anything else. Seen the rise and fall of Internet Explorer seeing the rise and fall of chrome.

    Even Firefox in its dreadfully slow era (2010-2016) it did not made me change. And let me be clear Firefox is far from perfect. But for my use cases (privacy and security balance over certain conveniences) I would not change for any commercially backed Browser.

    Moral of the story. It’s better to donate to Mozilla and enjoy the freedom of your browser than giving yourself in on the erratic behavior of the big tech companies.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fortunately I at least have Firefox on Linux. But then when I need to use Windows for something… well look at that, also Firefox!

    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s still DNS level only, right? That wouldn’t stop YouTube ads, or remove annoyances.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      You can block ads from being served to you.

      But the flip side is that the website developer can make a website that won’t function if it can’t load the ads being served.

      And most users are gonna want a functional website.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Somebody’s going to need to write a web site with a very, very compelling function to make me give enough of a shit to not just click away if it is deliberately coded to not work with Firefox/adblockers. Like, gives me a million dollars per page load functionality.

        • HarriPotero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The day they do their own DoH in-browser it is definitely up to them. It’s already opt-in if you want to see how well your pi-hole won’t work with it enabled.

          Next step is to do DoH by default, and finally making it compulsory.

          • Album@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            They can do it all they want but it won’t work…

            If I “opt in” it falls back to non doh immediately because using doh on my network is not up to Chrome.

            use-application-dns.net + nxdomain for any known doh provider

            I don’t use pihole but doh blocking works great on my network. It should work on a pihole tho it’s pretty basic stuff.

            If you can’t resolve the domain you can’t validate the TLS certificate.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Switched to Firefox at work today. Looks like I still need Chrome to do the VPN handshake, but the more of us there are, the more pressure we have on IT!

        • Ephera@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I don’t have official information, but I doubt it. They tend to stick as closely to the Chromium experience as possible, with the exception of the ungoogled part, of course. Maintaining Manifest V2 support would also just be a massive amount of work, for which they likely don’t have the manpower.

        • AnActOfCreation@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I have no idea. I’d guess not, as it’s not a strong fork like other Chromium-based browsers. Its main selling point is that it’s nearly identical to Chrome, but with a lot of the Google garbage stripped out. I don’t use it as a daily driver, but only when I need something Chromium-based like the use case mentioned by @[email protected]. It’s very likely to work wherever Chrome does.

    • Emptiness@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m still confounded by workplaces that run the old nineties way of VPN handshake by browser. Clunky, clumsy just straight up bad digital workplace setup.

      There is no reason to not do it the modern way where all the handshaking and connecting is done under the hood, hidden from the user. At the most you as a user should only see the tiny little systray icon switch how it looks.

    • graymess@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      How long until the majority of the Internet is inaccessible to non-Chromium browsers because the pages “don’t support them”?

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I don’t think that’s going to be the case. People will find workarounds. The whole point of these alternative browsers is to use the web in whatever way the developers think their user base wants to use it. If the web is inaccessible to non-chromium browsers then people will spoof their browser to the site to look like a chromium browser.

        • bc93@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          That isn’t necessarily going to be possible. There are many diverse fingerprinting techniques, I really don’t think it would be trivial to spoof them all. User agent is easy but stuff like TLS fingerprinting is much harder to spoof.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If we get to the point where the corporatocracy can force us into a limited set of compliant browsers then the web as we know it has ended. I don’t think they’ll go that far unless they decide to go whole hog. That level of control will likely look to wipe out any useful plugins like ad-blockers or other privacy features. I didn’t want to go down the slippery slope argument, but that’s pretty much what will happen if they go that direction.

            • bc93@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              We’re kind of already there - there’s Chromium, Webkit and Gecko and that’s about it, two of which are controlled by the biggest ad companies in the world, and the third is heavily subsidised by the first. Mozilla was effectively forced into implementing DRM into the browser already, and there’s plenty of other “””standards””” published and approved by Google that Mozilla is pressured into implementing but doesn’t want to for security and privacy reasons.

              I definitely expect it’ll get worse.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Honestly the way the internet is going do you need access to the majority of the internet? I feel like its pretty dead as it is now already.

        Lemmy will still work because we mostly use Firefox, and i bet the same will hold true for many others.

        Basically the moment mainstream internet becomes google only you will see nerds build new websites specifiably to cater to the non google crowd and i trust random internet nerds a hack of a lot more than a monopoly corporation.

        BRING IT ON GOOGLE!, YOU CAN INITIATE THE PUSH TO CREATE A NEW BETTER INTERNET. ^Create demand for freedom trough your suppressive enforments^

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Oh yeah nothing bad could ever happen from effectively removing an entire section of the population from certain parts of the Internet completely.

          I can’t imagine that ever going badly.

          • bc93@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I remember back in the day, doing all of my browsing in Firefox, and having IE6 on my desktop for the random few websites/tools that only worked in IE for one reason or another. That is becoming a reality already with Chrome, I need to occasionally use WebUSB, which only really Chrome supports, because Mozilla quite rightly refuses to implement the spec.

            • Kiernian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              “WebUSB is a JavaScript application programming interface specification for securely providing access to USB devices from web applications”

              Holy Hannah, NO!!!

              Might as well allow a website to direct write to your hard drive unprompted again.

              Does noone see how BAD this stuff is?

              Stop creating attack vectors with glowing neon signs on them.

              • Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Except it’s a very good thing for 2FA USB keys which prevent people from gaining access unless they have physical access to the key. Also useful for USB gamepads etc

              • antler@feddit.rocks
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Web engines are nearly OSs at this point. It’s aready possible to flash a phone ROM in two clicks with a webpage. Most apps are also already rendered in browser engines anyway, that includes things like steam. The APIs might sound evil until your favorite FOSS project uses them to make your life better.

                Unfortunately, if Mozilla refuses to implement stuff like PWAs or advanced APIs it’s locked out of that side of innovation both good and bad.

                • Kiernian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It’s aready possible to flash a phone ROM in two clicks

                  That’s precisely the kind of access that a web browser should NEVER, EVER have.

                  If you think 2 stage download keylogger apps getting into app stores is bad, wait until it can be done with a banner ad. Or by viewing a comment on a post.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I would close my bank account and such to a different bank. It takes literally 5 minutes to open one online.

            And yes, I would not work for a company that doesn’t support Firefox

            I would also keep pestering support of the government website, that one I will have to give to you

  • Tag365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 months ago

    Now we gotta have websites developing for all web browsers instead of Google Chrome like it’s Internet Explorer 2.0.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are effectively only two web browsers: Chrome and Firefox. Literally everything else, aside from some really niche things that can’t render modern webpages, is a fork of one of those two that uses the same rendering engine.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not to toot the kagi Horn, but they are talking about releasing thier webkit based Orion Browser on Linux. Ive been following that one closely since it has firefox extension support.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I mean, if folks really want something like that, I’d say they shouldn’t have let KDE’s KHTML (which is what WebKit was forked from) die. But as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, KHTML→WebKit→Blink are related and thus fail to combat Google’s web hegemony the way that Gecko (Firefox) does.

        • breakingcups@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’ve become very skeptical of anything Kagi, wishing they’d just focused on making one thing good instead of getting distracted by mediocre AI and a browser they can’t realistically support while their search is still subpar. Illusions of grandeur.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You mean KHMTL, born in KDE’s Konqueror. That spawned WebKit (Safari), that spawned Blink (Chrome, Edge, Opera, etc). The whole thing then finally came full-circle when Konqueror dropped KHTML due to lack of development, now you have the choice between WebKit and Blink (via Qt WebEngine).

          Then there’s Gecko (Firefox) and Servo which had a near-death experience after Mozilla integrated half of it into Gecko but by now development is alive and kicking again. Oh and then there’s lynx, using libwww, tracing its lineage back straight to Tim Berners Lee.

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, they don’t mean KHTML. KHTML is an ancestor of WebKit and Blink, but WebKit forked from it over 2 decades ago. They meant WebKit.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              They also didn’t mean lynx and yet I mentioned it. How come? Might the distinct possibility exist that I used the opportunity to draw a wider picture, and “you mean X” has to be understood as internet brain-rot rhetorics, not literally?

              Just a suggestion.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Nope, it doesn’t count. The only reason Safari/WebKit isn’t considered a fork of Chrome/Blink is that Chrome/Blink is a fork of Safari/WebKit instead.

          • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m sure they’ve diverged enough for it to be pretty significant compared to the Chromium browsers

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            So it wasn’t, like, forked hard enough that now after the years it counts as a different browser? Expect it to render pages ‘n’ stuff pretty much like Chrome?

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I admit, I haven’t really looked into it. It’s possible Apple implemented new HTML/CSS/JS standards independently, but it’s also possible that Apple continued to backport Google’s changes. Unless they had a business goal of being independent (or NIH syndrome) I would guess that they’d do mostly the latter, but you’d have to go read the code to know for sure.

              They are definitely still more related to each other than either is to Gecko (which is to say, not related at all), though.

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            They’ve been separate for over a decade, and even before that they were heavily customizing it. They’re cousins, but absolutely not close enough at this point to be considered the same.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          What word? I spoke the truth: there are only two rendering engines. The only reason Safari/WebKit isn’t considered a fork of Chrome/Blink is that Chrome/Blink is a fork of Safari/WebKit instead.

          • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I deleted my original comment before you replied because I am not really in the mood to defend this but the OP was talking about the pain of developing for different browsers and I don’t care what is a fork of what, this is a fact: Chrome, Firefox and Safari all render differently and have to be catered to individually.

            Also, Safari, between desktop and mobile, has 30% of the market to Firefox’s 8%.

            I don’t LIKE it, but there are “effectively” three, not two, rendering engines.

            • Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              It’s about browser architecture and not silly names (“Safari”, “Firefox”, “Chrome”). The point is that there are only two actual variants.

              • Deway@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                No, you still have three rendering engines. WebKit and Blink are different. Since the second is an (old) fork of the other one, they are similar but far from being the same. They are pages that work in one but not the other, even if you change the user agent.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        And safari, although it’s a cousin/uncle to Chrome at this point.

        Not that I use it, but still.