Another aspect that people ought to consider: monopoly is actually bad. Shocker, I know.
But if you have a corporate browser engine that pretty much controls the entire browser market, then whatever standard that browser implements it will automatically become the default. That's bad, Google is evil.
I've used Firefox for a over a decade, and switched from Google to duckduckgo around the same time.
So yeah, fuck Google. Never missed them.
I've been using Firefox since like 2010 and I don't regret it.
My one frustration with Vivaldi is that it's based on Chromium. Yes, it also has an adblocker, but I feel uBlock Origin is more effective! If there's anything like Vivaldi, but with the Gecko engine, I would like to try it
not that i know of but if you just want to recreate the mouse gestures of vivaldi there are extensions for it
But how long are they going support it is the question...
they will implement manifest v3 differently than chromium based browsers, it will not effect the functionality of adblockers
I'm a big fan of Brave. It blocks ads by default
Brave is just chrome with a crypto scam stapled on
I don't understand why it's so popular, I tried it out but it's just chromium with an adblocker and the crypto thing added (Which is a pain to disable it completely). It's not bad, but it is not as good as people says
Charitable answer: because people are too lazy and/or incompetent to install browser addons, which is really very easy to do
Suspicious answer: astroturfing
brave adblocker is not nearly as good as ublock0
Eh, Brave has some things going for it, like its search engine which is apparently quite good. On the other hand its still chromium and thus legitimizes the Google Monopoly. Besides that, the crypto bs they have pushed in the past and the past monetary contributions to homophobic causes by the founder are a red flag as well.
For easy plug-and-play Librewolf and Mullvad Browser are probably the best. Although for most people it would probably make sense to enable specific cookies for sites they visit often so they stay logged in. Though there are probably easy tutorials for that online. Or, even better, use a password manager like bitwarden and install its respective browser plugin.
Me too, since their adblock is natively implemented it won't be affected by manifest V3.
Even if its not affected by manifest V3 changes directly, we shouldnt forget what V3 means. It shows the direction that Google wants to take Chromium into, unsurprisingly. Google is an Ad company, making a browser that has ad-blocking or has forks (i.e. Brave) that focus on ad-blocking is against its very core goal. Manifest V3 could just be the start. We dont know what changes they have in mind that could be impossible to evade for comparatively small projects like Brave. Imagine important and big features and security updates shipped with spyware so deeply integrated that only a giant company like Google could implement it while making it impossible for any smaller company like Brave to divide. Brave would be dead over night.
That is not a far-fetched future prediction. But as of now, Brave works just fine. No reason to stop using it now from what might happen. If SHTF, I'll simply download something else.
@00 @Monologue @DoctorForesight @suslord Would it be feasible for Google to close the source of Chromium and/or Blink or do they have licenses that prevent it?
The ultimate question would be whether anyone had the soft- or hard-power to stop them if they wanted to, which might be doubtful. But like @Monologue said, it wouldnt be in their interest. Keeping everyone tied to them and their services is far more profitable than actually using hard power to stomp out projects that steal comparatively little from their profit margins. But profit margins are profit margins, so further changes to make Chromium/Chrome even more of a spyware while booting out forks is just a double win.
Would it be feasible for Google to close the source of Chromium
They can switch to a new licence, but it would only apply to future contributions, not what already exists. So if they did that, the result would be multiple forks. MS would need to maintain their own fork for Edge.
why would they want that? it is better for them this way since they ensure that any competitors will use their engine (which they decide what goes into the code) simply forking it wouldn't be that possible either because you would need to be able to update it regularly to fit the current web standards effectively competing the budget and resources of google
firefox is literally the last bastion of free internet, use the furry be happy
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
