Right side is obvious, but what is that about Mozilla?
24Probably the people—accurately—pointing out that Mozilla has also adopted Manifest V3 along with Google. Google is doing it to curtail (“kill”) ad blockers. Mozilla is also now in the advertising game, and secretly began a telemetry program which is opt-out only. And, given how we shouldn’t trust orgs with financial motive, very well could opt you back in with future updates exactly as Microsoft does.
Plus, their current CEO has a history, and Mozilla as a whole faces dicey times ahead if their Daddy Google is forced to stop buying exclusivity deals by the U.S. government.
So take your pick I guess.
33Per Mozilla's blog post about adopting Manifest V3, they are, unlike Chrome, not removing the API that lets uBlock Origin work:
One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways. Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement.
Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.
Let's not spread half truths please.
15Did Mozilla signal any intention to phase out V2 though? It makes sense for them to support both, as a lot of extensions (that don't rely on V2 features that are missing from V3) are going to be built for V3 now and if Mozilla wants to keep their extension store full. If they didn't offer both versions, extensions developers might disregard Firefox as a platform because of its low usage share numbers if they had to maintain two different architectures.
11Stop spreading fucking lies.
0
These things are nothing alike.
Mozilla introducing opt out tracking is a legitimately concerning event and rightly triggered questions around Mozillas motives.
20"Manufacturing" is a very hot take. You could actually look into the complaints and valid criticisms before calling it "manufactured." Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that they don't have valid reasoning. Come to reality
9valid criticisms
Was? I saw someone say that Mozilla were implementing PPA so they could take a cut of all adverts that appear via the browser. It's outrage for the sake of outrage. A bunch of people that run adblockers, whipping up a storm about something that doesn't affect them, because God forbid an alternative to Chromium based browsers exist or some other stupid as shit idea. All hail the Internet purists. If it doesn't benefit them directly, it has to be bad.
1It is pretty much being forced on everyone. It is enabled by default and you need to know that you must disable it. It wasn't asked for and doesn't benefit me in the least. However, it is a privacy risk. I also don't like it out of principle as I don't like being manipulated (targeted advertising)
2Way to miss the point.
Chromeos should suit you well.
1
You a bit 🧂 about Mozilla, OP?
As an anti-Mozilla terrorist, I'll tell you it's never too late to join the !links2@lemmy.sdf.org gang
8They didn't sound salty though.
0
'I don't agree with the complaints, so they must be manufactured'
2
