this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
166 points (81.4% liked)

Firefox

18045 readers
185 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slazer2au 175 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Mozilla is the maker of the famous Firefox browser which has been using its own web engine called “Gecko” since forever, and hence, is not affected at all by these moves from Google.

You answered your own question. It doesn't effect FF.

But, I do agree they should use the downgrade in functionality of V3 as a point for advertising FF.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What good would advertising "Still supporting Manifest V2" do for your average user? They also wouldn't want to openly advertise that "Your ad block still works with us".

[–] tb_ 17 points 3 months ago

Most sane take in this whole thread.

Some of y'all get a little conspiratorial.

[–] gedaliyah 2 points 3 months ago

That is literally the premise of the article

[–] eruchitanda 44 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don't they get like 90% of their money from Google?

[–] slazer2au 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] TriflingToad 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

that's also probably a factor in why they don't say anything, big moneypants might say something

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, big moneypants is getting sued for monopoly practices, which means Mozilla's search revenue may dry up. I'm guessing they don't want to ruin their chances with a competitor should they need to find another search partner.

[–] TriflingToad 1 points 3 months ago

sure, that's also probably a factor in why they don't say anything, new big moneypants might say something

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Didn't they remove XUL extensions to make their extension interface compatible with inferior chrome web extensions?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

I just did a quick online search and it seems like the reason for removing that was that it was way too much work to maintain and stopped them from implementing performance improvements for Firefox. Apparently it was also a lot of work for extension developers, since they had to update their extensions constantly.

That's just what I read tho, I wasn't there when XUL extensions where still a thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

i wouldn’t say inferior… mozilla extensions were more performant and flexible, web extensions (ie the initial chrome format - now a standard that most browsers use) are easier to develop, and thus there were a lot more of them

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Because it doesn't make sense for all Firefox marketing material to be how shit chrome is. Save that bullshit for American president elections

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It will be exciting to see Kamala and Trump debate whether Gecko or Blink should be the industry leader.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Kinda off topic, but I find it weird that Kamala is usually referred by first name, and trump by surname.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

It's a "brand recognition" kind of thing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Trump™ Kamala™

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

They should get married. Then it would be Kamala Trump

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Harris can't deny the popularity of Blink. Trump is a die-hard EdgeHTML advocate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not saying anything bad about chrome is probably in the contract they have with Google which is most of their income

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nah I doubt, it would be a huge lawsuit if google was found to pay competitors for staying quiet about their flaws

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Sure they could sue but that's a lose lose situation even if they won Google would not give them money anymore and they need that to stay in Business

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Hold up

American presidents are hating on Chrome? What did I miss?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

... because Mozilla already clarified their position on this last year.

TL;DR

No, Mozilla is NOT ditching manifest v2.

Well what’s happening with MV2 you ask? Great question – in case you missed it, Google announced late last year their plans to resume their MV2 deprecation schedule. Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.

Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manifest-v2-march-2024-update/

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Did you read the article? Your link supports the point it was making: Mozilla doesn't mention ad blocking anywhere. It's immediately brought up in the comments, but Mozilla itself doesn't want to broach the topic.

Years ago, Mozilla would explicitly call ad blocking a privacy feature, and proclaim it explicitly.

Now they don't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

~~but Mozilla itself doesn’t want to broach the topic.~~

Again, a reminder that Mozilla plans to continue support for the Manifest Version 2 blocking WebRequest API (this API powers, for example, uBlock Origin) while simultaneously supporting Manifest Version 3.

Source: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2022/12/02/webextensions-mv3-webmidi-opensearch-pip-updates-and-more-these-weeks-in-firefox-issue-128/

~~Years ago, Mozilla would explicitly call ad blocking a privacy feature, and proclaim it explicitly.~~

Ahem! https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/ > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/adblocker/

Cooking up conspiracy theory instead of research is easy, is not it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Source: 2022

Hey look, years ago.

And your other page was 2018.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Source: 2022

Incorrect, that's actually from 2022 B.C.

And your other page was 2018

Correct, the snap of article from 2018 looks exactly identical to 2024 instance with ZERO modifications. Mozilla finally gave us on Privacy it seems, as no one bothered to update that page since 2018.

Wait a sec, they also haven't updated this article as well since 2020. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browsers/compare/chrome/

/s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You keep posting things that agree with me. I don't think you understand that.

The only way to find a contradiction is to find new articles that trumpet their ad blocking capabilities, not old ones from years ago.

Do you understand, years ago?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, like publishing a new article every day just to prove their commitment to end-users' privacy.

Incremental updates to articles, hosted literally on home page, with details of newer privacy features is so old school.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also not what I said.

Mozilla started selling private data to advertising companies in 2023.

Mozilla became an advertising company in June, 2024.

Isn't it curious that they've suddenly become much less outspoken about ad blocking after 2022?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Also not what I said.

Source: 2022 Hey look, years ago. And your other page was 2018.

Mozilla started selling private data to advertising companies in 2023

(Assuming this is about Pocket) Is it too much to expect from you to know the difference between aggregated non-PII data vs PII data?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's about their FakeSpot subsidiary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It’s about their FakeSpot subsidiary.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/review-checker-review-quality#w_protect-your-privacy

Protect your privacy Firefox is committed to empowering you with information about review reliability while respecting your privacy. We use Oblivious HTTP (OHTTP) for Review Checker. When Review Checker is turned on, we use information about the products you visit on Amazon, Best Buy and Walmart to analyze the reviews, but by using OHTTP we ensure Mozilla cannot link you or your device to the products you have viewed. OHTTP uses encryption and a third party intermediary server to offer a technical guarantee that this is the case: all Mozilla learns from this network request is that someone, somewhere, looked at a given product.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I wasn't thinking about that one, although it is hilarious Mozilla thinks it can claim it isn't scraping private data by using a business collaborator as an intermediary.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

"We really can't rock the boat on this Google money "

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Manifest v3 extensions work in Firefox, too. Its just the new thing. Its way easier to build cross-browser extensions with, too. V3 is actually a good thing overall, as its led to a lot of extensions being available for Firefox when the devs might have just targeted chrome. Way more feature parity between browsers with v3.

Chrome dropping support for v2 doesn't merit a response from Firefox because nothing changes for Firefox users and they're not going to drop support. Any one who actually cares (and they should) will move to Firefox on their own, so why waste advertising money on that? Eventually Firefox and any other browsers who want to allow stuff like ublock will probably have a way to do the same tasks in v3 (and the Firefox Dev team has said as much in blog posts for ages), then it'll just be a feature that doesn't work in chrome. V3 just simply doesn't have the API that ublock uses in v2.

There have been discussions for years in the w3c standards group about this whole shitshow and this is one the chrome team have basically refused to budge on despite all the other browser teams. Its honestlu a mirscle they delayed it as long as they have. This was originally supposed to happen at the start of 2023.

Chrome is kinda like a country with a overrule veto vote at the UN when it comes to w3c working groups since they can just do whatever they want anyway, and nothing will change until they no longer have that power. That said, browser feature parity is at an all time high recently and its because all the browser teams are working together better than ever. There are just these hard limits chrome chooses to stick to.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

What you said makes sense from a technical standpoint but not from a practical standpoint. If I'm losing good adblock on Chrome, but good ad block still works on Firefox, it would be easy for Mozilla to put up some blog posts or tweets or whatever to point out that they are a great option, because they're adblock isn't going anywhere.

This is an obvious concern for many users, Mozilla has the capability to issue a press release or anything at all, and they've chosen not to do so. Therefore, people are reasonably questioning why they've chosen not to do so. Free marketing but they're throwing it away, and their best defense for doing nothing is essentially what you wrote, which is essentially to dodge the precise issue at hand.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

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.

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biggest thing I learned from that article is that over 1/3 of users use an adblocker. I did not know adblockers had become so prevalent amongst normies

[–] rasmus 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Have you visited a website without it, its 10:1 ratio of ads to content

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Oh yeah I would never browse the internet unprotected by an adblocker, but knowing that normies are feeling this way now too? That's something else entirely

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla should spent money to advertise(Is this right? I don't know verbs fuck) a flaw in Chrome? It's not like the public cares about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The do get most of there funding from Google

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

There are thousands of user configurable flags/settings in about:config

An option for Manifest V3 has been there for quite a while. It wasn't enabled by default.

In FF Nightly for Android it is enabled by default along with V2.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Why would it not be?

[–] Matriks404 3 points 3 months ago

Well of course they are, after all they are slowly becoming one of these malicious companies it tried to fight with.