This can be the main reason:
Mozilla: Anthropic’s Mythos found 271 security vulnerabilities in Firefox
Oh if it end up in the iOS app I’ll be thrilled, I use brave for YouTube only on iOS for Adblock
You can block YouTube ads in Safari with uBlock.
a default-disabled prototype
No wonder it didn’t show up in normal/enduser release notes.
This article suggests you have to disabled Enhanced Tracking Protection to test it. Does it replace that entire system with an equivalent system?
I’ll wait until it’s stable and productive.
How incredible i think I’ll start using Firefox again as it’s becoming better i just wish they would create their own email service already.
Very soon ! https://www.tb.pro/en-GB/
Where it stores all the data? USA? Or some Big Tech cloud?
google likely
That’s a good thing.
Brave’s native adblock is the best.
uBlock is better
Yeah we have to second this, unlock is way better in our experience
are you plural?
Yeah lol
It’s gonna slip eventually so we stopped giving a shit on not using plural pronouns
Does that mean yall is a correct pronoun?
We do like that pronoun :3 But we’re a simple She/they 90% of the time
yet your username remains singular, curious \s
LMAO touché!
It’s actually related to a fursona (character) we use to help project emotions and self. Though because of DID there are so many different variants and versions it’s hard to keep up even though we all collectively made the character. Hell some of them aren’t even a dog but a human and others- non living (?) <idk personally, I only added the glasses hehe. -pj>
It would be really nice too if they implemented Brave’s fingerprint randomization, which is obviously not perfect and I’m never going to expect Tor like anonymity, but is far better than most other browsers. Where Mullvad and Tor try to make everyone look the same, Brave randomizes nearly every important fingerprint.
And I know Firefox does this pretty well already, but from the research I did, Brave’s fingerprint vector randomization is another level.
i noticed it allowed one to evade reddits fingerprinting filters temporarily. so it was useful for a month when i was using that browser.
I like using libreddit front ends. I don’t think they’re all called libreddit, but it’s a privacy front end that is really nice to use when I need to look at reddit for something.
Fuck no. I don’t want Brave stuff in my browser :(
The cool thing about open source is that you can just take it without selling your soul.
Long live the hard fork!
Although I expect there are limits.
“Quietly” I saw the article announcing it weeks ago
Wow Firefox just keeps getting worse.
who still trusts Mozilla these days ?
Lesser evil
same.
I trust Mozilla over Brave because at least the CEO isn’t outwardly a piece of shit.
don’t be confused. they are a piece of shit, just not outwardly so.
chrome, and chromium is worst.
Of course they just had to make it somewhat contreversial by adopting braves adblock engine; brave’s ceo or whatever funds anti gay lobbyists.
This doesn’t bother me. The gays have won equal rights. Their push for acceptance and parity with straight people has been wildly successful. It’s like if I found out the CEO of a company I love financially supported anti-pet lobbying groups…good luck taking away people’s cats and dogs.
The only rights gay people might have not won involves adoption, but I feel like thats anti-man more than anything else. Society doesn’t feel comfortable giving a person a child unless there is a woman involved.
I started reading this and thought it was ironic but then i saw the pet example and that made me think… but then i realized im getting rage baited… yay so nice to use the internet nowadays
I have some pretty contrarian opinions, at least in the context of Lemmy. I use the pet example because I have a cat. I love my cat, but whether or not the people who make my products love cats doesn’t concern me. They’d need to be able to actively harm my cat to justify a boycott.
ok bro
I can imagine you saying “This doesn’t bother me. The women have won reproductive rights,” in 2022 just before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and it’s sending me
Bruh everything is funded by some sort of criminal. Jeffery Epstein could have donated to the Mozilla foundation for all we know. You literally cannot tell.
That’s a very convenient position that absolves you from any responsibility to do anything. Convenient, but I don’t think correct.
As u/TBi said in the comments
People won’t pay for anything, and are then surprised by who actually pays for stuff.
I’m not sure that’s right. It’s not like they’re giving money to brave. The library itself isn’t tainted, and using it doesn’t benefit brave or the CEO.
Further, simply supporting a thing doesn’t make that thing a moral proxy for the supporter. That path leads to an infinite regress of bad moral choices with nothing being moral.
Lemmy is licensed under the AGPL which was created at the Free Software Foundation which was started by Richard Stallman who made controversial comments about Jeffrey Epstein in 2019. Don’t breath or you might inhale an atom once exhaled by Adolf Hitler.
Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.
People won’t pay for anything, and are then surprised by who actually pays for stuff.
These developers need to eat too.
Brave is also backed by Peter Thiel.
First I’ve heard of that. Source?
His foundation has invested in it per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)
Thanks, I knew about some of Brave’s controversies but missed that.
I also wasn’t previously aware that Brave’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was a homphobic shithead, either.
Just wait till you find out who funds Firefox.
Could it be… Satan?
It’s Google. So…… yes.
What? Seriously?? Those demons just have to finger fuck every pie that ever shows promise of subverting their datamining-advertising empire while pretending to be some force for good that cares about privacy and not being evil
Can we just destroy this hydra once and for all already
Iirc google only pays Mozilla for a. Having google as the default search engine and b. Avoiding antitrust lawsuits.
“Only” comes with a lot of implied strings attached. Can Mozilla bite the hand that feeds them? If they can, they should, especially if Google is as evil as they are. If they can’t, well, we’ve identified their master, haven’t we?
Funded what ?
deleted by creator
If we are going to eschew open source projects from shitty tech companies, then there’s a pretty long list.
Everyone has their own line, and I don’t begrudge people theirs.
But at the end of the day we all have to function somehow. Nobody’s hands are completely clean.
Huh, right after Waterfox started to implement it themselves. Must have spooked Mozilla. I don’t see how using Brave’s adblock engine is all that different from uBlock Origin though since they both just enforce DNS lists, right? Could be wrong, I know nothing about how adblocking works on the backend, lol
DNS lists?
Fuck no brother (or sister or non-binary sibling)Anyway. You can go as far as modifying the HTML page by overriding CSS rules.
Overrode the font on a page I am using at work because the vendor is apparantly not using their own product and the font is fucking tiny in some places.
You can override elements, dynamically remove with a selector wildcard, DNS blocks or subscribe to blocklists that can do all of it.Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff? Because FF already has debug tools built in that lets you edit the HTML or CSS of the page however you want, but it’s only for the current session. I’d occasionally use that before realizing I could just use reader mode for sites that did client side html5 bs for access control. Just go in and delete nodes using the picker tool. Until the annoying thing is gone.
I’ve never really played around with ublock’s capabilities, though did know that it must have been more sophisticated than just dns lists to stay in the arms race vs youtube (as well as why google was pushing “security features” that would kill it).
You could also use tools like greasemonkey to change the website more permanently
Just for clarification, but do you mean you can automate that stuff?
Yes.
uBlock at its core is really just a scripting system for replacing CSS content using certain rules.
The most common usage is to remove content you don’t like, but really it can manipulate things in a zillion different ways, many of the more advanced features are only available to the user and not larger block lists for security reasons.
the brave one doesnt block as good as ublock origin.
Firefox actually started developing it first, and Waterfox caught on and decided to piggyback off of it in a relatively small announcement at the bottom of a retrospective. The Waterfox announcement just got reported on first.
DNS blocking, like with a Pihole, famously does not remove Youtube ads. So no, the mechanism is totally different.
Yeah, I confused DNS lists with block lists I’ve realized, lol. My bad
I don’t know how it works either but water fox is the superior browser.
What is the progress of Servo and Ladybird?
They didn’t include this in the release notes? What in the world is going on?
From what I saw in a waterfox thread, it’s. It enabled, has no lists added or setup and is clearly early-stage.
It’s still a bit odd to deploy dormant code to non-testors, isn’t it? Mozilla can withhold a Nightly or Beta feature for as long as it feels like, regardless of how many versions are released as they develop it.
If there’s no reason to hold the feature code back (i.e. its integration doesn’t break anything), then it’s much easier for development to ship the feature and disable it with a feature flag. Otherwise, you have two versions of the code, which means changes need to be integrated in both versions, which is largely just pointless busywork.
I’m not in software development so don’t have an opinion on the practice, just passing on what I read that seemed relevant.
I said it for Waterfox and I’m gonna say it again for Firefox: this is good. At worst, it’s just fine.
The biggest difference right now is that the WaterFox developers noticed this early, and committed to providing full-fledged ad blocking out of the box, which is great news.
Rust is faster than JavaScript, native functionality is faster than an extension, and this is something Firefox users have been asking for for a long time.
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
Actual ad blocking is something Firefox users have been begging Mozilla to do
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
They should have built it in years ago, but called it “web security filtering” or something and included only a basic security blocklist, but left it easy to add other lists.
still it wasn’t blocking ads, and even I as a poweruser was not aware that I could add externally maintained ad blocklists
Rust is faster than JavaScript
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
The slow thing usually is the DOM manipulation anyways.
isn’t ublock’s filtering compiled to webassembly?
From my unprofessional glance ar their repository, it uses a little, but not much. Take a look at their code; all or most of the filtering is done in JavaScript, the webassembly appears to be just one module. (It’s in the “wasm” folder near the top of the list).
seems a bit dangerous though to risk for a browser with so small market share
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
Waterfox has a much smaller market share and much smaller budget, and was able to clear this with search partners just by promising not to block ads on them by default.
my point is not actually about search providers, but more generally websites intentionally breaking support for gecko based browsers. waterfox itself is too little, most developers don’t even know about it I think. but firefox is the flagship/reference gecko browser, with more of a measurable number of users. if they implement a good ad blocker in the base browser, that could discourage advertising related sites from serving/supporting this browser.
brave is different in that it uses chromium, which the sites just happen to support already because of chrome. but firefox support is often not a priority even today
firefox support is often not a priority even today
Dunno if I can name a time it was ;)
I guess it might be a priority for Mozilla sometimes
It was 16 years ago
:’(
especially using a brave adblocker, which i noticed doesnt block most ads, and likely whitelists some of them.
that probably depends on the blocklists used, like with ublock
Using technology from a known crypto scamming developer is not good.
Why?
I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.
It doesn’t really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.
Using ad blocking technology, unrelated to your complaint, is bad for what reason?
You can feel free to moralize, but be consistent: Mozilla bought an NFT company to integrate their code into Firefox, and that’s not the only skeleton in their closet.
I can hate more than one of Mozilla’s decisions.
Zewm forgot to have a reason. Do you have one?
Do you have a reason to “hate” this? Zewm forgot to have one.
I mean what’s wrong with buying a company to access it proprietary code. NFTs were a dumb grift, but if the specific software product they offered was sound what’s the issue?
If the code was good, nothing would be wrong with it. It would be even better if the code was free. And that’s my point.
(In Mozilla’s case, it’s actually much worse because they bought private customer data along with the technology and then canned the technology while keeping the data, but that’s a different story.)
@Solaris1220@lemmy.world any comment?
we were shocked and disappointed by the amount of fraud in crypto and NFT
That sounds so funny, somehow
Oh they have a whole cemetery of a city in the basement.
Still doeant excuse it IMO.
Does it need an excuse? It’s a good change. If you have a reason to dislike it, please provide one.
At worst, it’s just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).
I think you’re right but I’m sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?
I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.
My faith in Mozilla has dimmed a whole lot over the past few years, but if they feel like making Firefox worse, I don’t think they need to do it this way. More code does mean more vulnerabilities, but that hasn’t stopped them from adding a half dozen other features that could have been extensions. This one could actually be beneficial, as it would cut down on the performance requirements for users, especially mobile ones.
