1. 30
  1. 12

    It’s your own fault if you don’t switch to Firefox at this point as a privacy-conscious person. I know, it has its flaws, but all other alternatives are webkit-derivatives and I find it to be an excellent browser.

    If we let Firefox die, it will be the end of the open web as we know it. The standards would still mostly be open, but the software you use to access it won’t.

    1. 2

      Counterpoint: pick your favorite webkit-based browser project, and contribute whatever you can to keep that codebase out of Google’s exclusive control. We have more degrees of freedom than just consumer choice.

      (I use Firefox myself, but I don’t think a world with only one privacy-respecting browser would be an improvement on what we have now. Also, I’m not sure that Mozilla is a basket I would want all my eggs in.)

    2. 7

      I’ll just leave this here so that you don’t have to ask Google: https://donate.mozilla.org/

      1. 2

        Unfortunately, Google is still Mozilla’s single largest source of revenue, and they are a very well organized and represented stakeholder. As an individual, donating money to Mozilla doesn’t get you more of a voice in their decision making processes… unless maybe you donate an awful lot of money?

        I would be delighted to pay Mozilla a recurring subscription fee. Not a donation; a quid pro quo exchange, with the ‘quo’ being some form of organized stakeholder rights: a voice, a vote. But until they have a governance model that is both intentionally and accountably more responsive to their actual users than to their corporate partners (and their internal politics), I won’t really trust them.

      2. 0

        I think this is a little overblown (and I don’t work at Google). There are reasonable reasons for taking a manifest approach rather than the one that Google has taken previously; for example, some popular ad blockers today actually slow down pages and cause significant RAM bloat (AdBlock Plus), which is presumably why Safari took the manifest-based approach as well — and contrary to the author’s claim, Safari does have a rule limit: it’s 50k, which is admittedly higher than Chrome’s proposed 30k limit, but not enormously so.

        1. 5

          I don’t think that’s overblown at all. Google has 90% of the browser market, and they’re starting to flex their muscle introducing features that are hostile to the users. Whether plugin is slowing down pages or not, it’s not for Google to decide how it should work. I as a user should always have the right to use a plugin that I want.

          The real context here is that Google is an ads company, and there’s a massive conflict of interest with them having the default search engine and the de facto browser. Frankly, this situation should scare the shit out of everybody.

          1. 5

            some popular ad blockers today actually slow down pages and cause significant RAM bloat

            As many people have pointed out, though, this is a disingenuous reason to cite for limiting ad blockers, because the resource usage when ads aren’t blocked is far, far worse.

          2. -1

            There is no winning an argument with wild accusations like that. Do you think that all the Google engineers are evil and part of a conspiracy?

            Maybe Google is doing this, maybe not. But to convince the opposing party we have to take the charitable view and stick to the facts instead. Would you be open to suggestions while also being accused of doing horrible things?

            Looking at the Manifest V3, I am seeing a lot of good things that are dearly needed. The most important one is to allow extensions to only get access to pages when they are invoked instead of being able to run on *://*. Most of the changes seem to be related to tightening access to avoid extensions abusing the user like that.

            The charitable view is that they went a bit overboard with the features restrictions. Now the Manifest is up for discussion and ad-blockers should ask Google if they can implement the Firefox async API instead. And if not, talk about the specific points why this is a security threat when the read-only access is still accessible.

            1. 11

              The engineers don’t get to decide these things, and considering Google is an ads company first and foremost, I don’t think you need to invoke any conspiracy here. It’s pretty clear what Google is doing, we already went through the exact same thing with Microsoft when IE had market dominance. Now is absolutely not the time to give the benefit of the doubt because the consequences of Chrome stomping out every alternative are going to be severe.

              1. -1

                The engineers don’t get to decide these things

                Really? I doubt Google execs are in the business of writing APIs.

                1. 4

                  Google execs are precisely who decides on the features that their product has.

                  1. 1

                    It would be really weird for a manager to dictate the API shape. At minimum this makes all the developers on the Chrome team complicit as they would notice such strange behaviour.

                    The best outcome for this would be for Google to change the API back or to adopt the Firefox promise-based one. I don’t see how making wild accusations is helping with that matter.

                  2. 4

                    Google execs are totally in the business of firing developers who are not willing to write (or remove) the APIs. Or at least having them replaced by other developers who will be more willing.

                    Don’t underestimate the persuasive power of a salary.

                2. 9

                  Do you think that all the Google engineers are evil and part of a conspiracy?

                  From the end of the article:

                  To be clear my conclusions are emphatically not “Chrome engineers are out to get ad blockers”

                  I don’t think these are wild accusations at all - rather, quite carefully considered opinions.

                  1. 7

                    Do you think that all the Google engineers are evil and part of a conspiracy?

                    The post directly addressed this question.