Well the problem I&#x27;m trying to solve is &quot;how to use gmail on chromium without syncing to google&quot; not &quot;how to use email that isn&#x27;t gmail&quot;.I like gmail web mail a lot, and don&#x27;t have any desire to switch. It seems absurd that my web browser would be incompatible with that.

I would love to do this. However the warnings signs have blared into a real crisis: Google Docs has a stranglehold on “work”, in the broadest sense of the term, the way Microsoft Office once did. Until documents are decoupled from corporate lock-in on a mass scale, I’m personally stuck &amp; likely many others are.

Maybe you should ditch Gmail instead?I&#x27;m thinking about doing that.The single reason I started with GMail was because at the time, it had the best spam filter in the industry.But that was years ago. Has everyone else caught up? Is there another option with equally good spam filtering?

well, you could always try that thing called Firefox. I can log into Gmail just fine.

I&#x27;m using Ubuntu&#x27;s Chromium package and it isn&#x27;t &quot;un-googled&quot; at all (69.0.3497.81-0ubuntu0.18.04.1). Any Ubuntu users have tips?

Firefox DRM is only downloaded after explicit user consent.

Brave and Vivaldi are both based on Chromium and have packaged, non-Google distributions.I&#x27;m posting this comment on Brave, having switched over last week for most of my personal browsing. Generally like it a lot; there are a couple warts (it won&#x27;t open S3 URLs from the AWS web interface, for example), but it does most of what I need in a browser.

If you&#x27;re really set on a Chrome-like browser, there&#x27;s ungoogled chromium. Otherwise, I guess Firefox is the only truly free choice at this point, and even that includes DRM to be able to cope with sites like Netflix.Edit: actually, there should be more browsers that I don&#x27;t know about because I haven&#x27;t really looked around anymore since choosing Firefox a decade ago. Is anything as well-supported (in terms of proper rendering and security, as well as being FOSS &#x2F; privacy-conscious) that I should look at other than ungoogled chromium?

I love Firefox in theory, it&#x27;s just that in practice I&#x27;ve never been able to stick with it. One thing or another always leaves me running back to Chrome. It&#x27;s possible that it&#x27;s just my own bias and familiarity, but I&#x27;m not principled enough to endure an inferior experience in any way. Plus working in chrome dev tools all day long, you really miss it when you want to pop something open and look under the hood real quick, and I don&#x27;t think Firefox is quite up to par there.

&gt; there’s just no good alternativeAre you referring to the chromium space options, or the browser market as a whole? I’ve never left Firefox and still find it to be a pleasant browser, one with which I’ve never felt really left out barring a few annoying bugs from time to time that are typically short lived.

Thanks for for reminding me to try that out again. It felt a bit rough at launch but I&#x27;ve been using it all day now and I think I&#x27;ll switch for good.

I’m confused. Are you really claiming you can’t log into gmail in non google browsers? And this comment was upvoted?Sorry. I call BS.

For me it was early on during the time where Chrome was new. First they didn&#x27;t support plugins so adblockers were not working so I&#x27;d see ads and pop ups everywhere. Next they did support adblockers but they sucked due to API limitations. I realized then that they were primarily an ad company, I know the adblockers have somewhat improved for Chrome but I went back to Firefox and never bothered again. I only use Chrome &#x2F; Chromium for web development.

So I wanted to drop Chrome a while ago, and looked at Chromium. Apparently using the &quot;no sync&quot; version you can no longer even log into Gmail (or any other Google service) on the web. That was definitely the last straw for me losing trust in Google, but there&#x27;s just no good alternative.I&#x27;m not sure where to go from here because it seems pointless to even use Chromium if I can&#x27;t remove Google from it and still be able to login to Gmail.

That’s unfortunately even true years after they left Google.

No, a brick wall doesn&#x27;t stare at you blankly.  Nor does it argue back arrogantly and defy you that whatever Google wants is best.

This may be true, but it&#x27;s definitely not unique to Google. I know some well-meaning leftists who work for the leading Social Network and don&#x27;t see any contradiction in that.I could imagine a high-flying company having entitled employees, I just don&#x27;t see the qualitative difference between this or that company. Please enlighten me if I&#x27;m missing the point.And lest I sound arrogant myself: I once worked in Pharma and made my peace with the price vs R&amp;D logic.

This is the culture of monopoly. The same can be said of that other monopoly, government.

It&#x27;s not a matter of arrogance but of money. You have to understand when it comes to google, you are the product, not the customer. Google&#x27;s real customers are big ad buyers. They listen to large ad buyers. Look how quickly they &quot;cleaned&quot; up search results and youtube videos when ad buyers complained.Us complaining to google about poor treatment is like sheep complaining to shepherds or vegetables complaining to the farmer about poor treatment. Nobody would care. But if the shepherd or farmer&#x27;s customers complained, they would listen very closely because it affects their bottom line.Especially now that google has a monopoly position on search and online videos, they have even less reason to care about what the products ( you and me ) say.

This is the culture of having hundreds of millions of users. One user asking for something is just a data point and you have to rely on user research and surveys to know what users really want on average. But surveys have their blind spots as well.The thing is, as a developer without having access to user research, all I know is what I want, and as a developer I assume I&#x27;m atypical. Whether it corresponds to what anyone else wants is questionable.The opposite of this is people who assume that whatever they personally want is Obviously the Right Thing For All Users. You will find that attitude everywhere on the Internet. And that has its own flaws.

Wouldn&#x27;t it make Google people to think when opened HN they found top 3 as it is for now - &quot;1. Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration&quot;, &quot;2. Why I’m done with Chrome&quot;, &quot;3. News Site to Investigate Big Tech, Helped by Craigslist Founder&quot;?

Google&#x27;s culture breeds internal arrogance and blindness to outside concerns. Arguing with Google people about issues with their products is approximately as effective as arguing with a brick wall.

It shows a big blue banner (or is it a button? I don&#x27;t dare click it) announcing the current state as &quot;Sync as &lt;username&gt;&quot;. If the developers need to explain this repeatedly over twitter to a professional, what impression do you think normal users who don&#x27;t follow a niche twitter discussion get?

Well I went to turn this login thing off and the only way to do it was to click a button under the heading &quot;Sync&quot; that said &quot;Turn Off.&quot;But if these things are unrelated, I guess we&#x27;ll just have to chalk that up to Google&#x27;s famously shitty product management and design skills.

It doesn&#x27;t for _now_. Which is no small part of his point. The next step is to automatically turn on sync etc, which is an easier step now people will start to be used to the idea they&#x27;re automatically signed in to stuff in Chrome.The main thrust though, is that this doesn&#x27;t actually solve anything for end users that the Google Chrome team says it does. There appears to be absolutely no benefit in turning this on.

He understood it and it&#x27;s mentioned there in the blog post.

Reading that thread, Green knows this and his argument is more subtle then that.

And as he describes in the blog, this fact is utterly irrelevant.

From the response quoted in the article:So in theory your data should remain localThat doesn&#x27;t sound very reassuring to me. Especially long term.

Did you even read the article? He stated several times that the problem isn’t that sync is or isn’t enabled after the change; it’s the silent push of an update that directly violates user consent, and it widens the mouth of the user funnel-trap by quite a lot.

For now. The next step in the dark pattern is to note the &quot;User confusion that arises when chrome is logged in to the account, but the data is not synced&quot;, and automatically turn on sync.

I’m wondering where the source of truth for the sync setting is stored.  If I enable sync on one chrome browser — then in another chrome browser on another device log into gmail (triggering chrome login) — will browser history sync be enabled on that second device?

This feature doesn’t enable sync. That’s something that members of the Chrome team have been patiently trying to explain to Matthew Green on Twitter for several days now.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;__apf__&#x2F;status&#x2F;1043505744144826369?s=21" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;__apf__&#x2F;status&#x2F;1043505744144826369?s=21</a>

&quot;It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.&quot;-- Upton Sinclair (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Upton_Sinclair" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Upton_Sinclair</a>)

I engaged with the folks pushing this feature internally when my own browser started enforcing omnidirectional login. One of my specific complaints was that it was an end-run around the user-provided sync passphrase, which nominally prevents Google from hoovering up my logged-out history.They didn&#x27;t grok my privacy issue. Maybe they were deliberately misunderstanding me. Doesn&#x27;t matter either way. Now I use Firefox.

I also switched to Firefox. I wanted to give Opera a try but they also use Chromium, where this feature now exists.Firefox it is, and they have done a great job with the new version.

Same, I always loved FF but had switched to Chrome maybe 2-3 years ago.After this incident, I switched to FF Quantum permanently. It has come a long way and honestly I feel more at home in FF after a day than I did in Chrome after everything they&#x27;ve tacked on the browser.Having read these threads, and personally knowing people in the Chrome team that read these threads, I am almost certain that Google will backtrack this. I know more than a dozen developers that switched from Chrome to FF Quantum this week.

Also a fan. I&#x27;m also switching permanently to Firefox after this incident rather than use multiple browsers depending on the purpose.

Strange. I almost exclusively use OSX (El Cap) and haven&#x27;t had performance issues asides from needing to restart the browser once a month or so. Hopefully they get those problems resolved soon, the browser is super quick when it&#x27;s working right.

I gave up on Firefox on OS X for performance reasons and switched to Safari a while ago and it’s a decent browser. It has support for extensions that I use (ublock origin and 1Password), uses less battery than any other browser, and is fast

Yep. And Google Voice runs horribly on iOS.. 20 second lag time to check messages, no joke. Earlier versions would freeze at the beginning of each character you type.Makes me wonder if companies aren&#x27;t just slowing down their competitors..

These issues seem like they’re (finally) fixed in the betas of Firefox 63.

It’s been pretty good for me since Quantum. There is still a known issue with scaled monitor resolutions (which I do use), but it looks like fixes are in the pipeline.

Sorry to sound naive, but is there a good reason (or a few) not to use Safari?

What performance issues have you experienced? Chrome and Firefox run the same on my machine. The only time I switch to Chrome is when some Javascript developer has for some reason disabled click functionality in browsers besides Chrome. Most recently Bank of America has prevented click functionality on their cash back merchants.

If you are on MacOS, why don&#x27;t you use Safari?I&#x27;m puzzled as to why people seem to dismiss the &quot;built-in&quot; browser. It&#x27;s the fastest, smoothest, best integrated, and least power-hungry browser on the platform. I regularly use all three major browsers (for testing, I write web applications) and I consistently switch back to Safari for all my non-special browsing.

Yes I have the same issue. Completely absurd resource usage on some pages, causes my fans to spin constantly.

Really? When I complained about Firefox performance on macOS, I was downvoted by a lot of people. It almost made me consider if the problem was PEBKAC (problem exists between keyboard and chair). I am glad I&#x27;m not the only one. I wanted to love Firefox, but I can&#x27;t because of this.edit: reading all the comments in this thread, geez, I finally feel like I&#x27;m not a stupid user. :) The issues are real!

I have perfomance issues on heavy JS websites. Facebook is almost unusable. But I have a bunch of extensions. If I try using a new profile (no extensions, default preferences, etc) it&#x27;s nice and smooth.

The current Firefox beta changeling has a couple items that suggest better performance on macOS:&quot;Faster tab switching in the majority of cases for our macOS users&quot;&quot;Improved the reactivity of Firefox on macOS&quot;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;63.0beta&#x2F;releasenotes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;63.0beta&#x2F;releasenotes</a>

I wanted to ditch Chrome, so I tried Firefox on macOS and it took 3-5 seconds to load most sites while they load in 0.5-1.0 seconds in Chrome. I tried uninstalling (including deleting all profile data) and re-installing to see if that helped. This is as far as I got in trying to install uBlock Origin: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gyazo.com&#x2F;5850d1b0955c42b857de4ab302c8149b" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gyazo.com&#x2F;5850d1b0955c42b857de4ab302c8149b</a> Tried viewing source, but that page just came out blank too. I really want to like Firefox, but the release version feels like an alpha test to me...

I just switched on my Ubuntu, following the new release of Chrome which OP rightly criticizes. It works very well.

I wish I could use it but it has serious performance problems on macOS. I tried and it was just terrible. (thought not all Mac users have problems, quite a number do, and Mozilla has an open issue asking for debugging logs from Macs to find the reasons).

Thank you for this suggestion. I truly appreciate it. I just dumped Chrome on mobile and started using Firefox. While it is a fast browser it is nothing compared to Brave. I&#x27;m completely blown away by this browser. Now I&#x27;m going to install Brave on my desktop as well.

Brave shows promise, but the windows installer won&#x27;t allow you to run it outside of appdata, a deal breaker.

I really want to use Brave and I&#x27;ve tried it over the course of more than a year, here and there, and every time it crashes when I pin tabs, I haven&#x27;t checked their bug reports, granted, but how is this not solved by now?

I switched to Brave - not looking back :)

My browser of choice is Vivaldi, the most features and flexibility. Love it.

Could you please provide reasoning and evidence for this assertion? Benchmarks, for example?

&gt;Firefox is a truly fantastic browser nowI&#x27;ve been seeing people repeat that for the past 5 years. It turns out to be false though.

Google’s, no less! (Widevine.)At least for me, on Linux, it’s always been opt-in, and plenty of the versions of Firefox packaged by distro maintainers get rid of it all together.

They do, (I imagine if Netflix wouldn&#x27;t work, they would lose users), but at least it&#x27;s opt-in.

While I switched back to Firefox a while ago due to loss of trust in Google, it should not be forgotten that they support DRM on the web.

Pocket is now owned by Mozilla.I for one am glad that it exists, I love Pocket, the only annoyance I have is that the Firefox integration is not as complete as the Chrome add-on, probably because Firefox users keep bitching and moaning about it.

I never noticed the screenshot tool but, wow, that is some ugly piece of ui. The save button is called &quot;Download&quot; and the upload button is called &quot;Save&quot;, holy crap. It sure comes off as someone at Mozilla going &quot;I know, lets shove this new cloud enabled share-your-screenshots-with-everyone thing marketing came up with down every bodies throat via the screenshot tool!&quot;

I&#x27;m a huge fan too but it seems like Mozilla keeps dropping the ball on specific odd, &quot;easy&quot; things. The built-in screenshot tool makes it really easy to accidentally upload private information to a public inage sharing site and the Issue tracking a simple button relabeling has been open for months. They refuse to back down on Pocket integration that still leaves an awful taste in my mouth. The Library&#x2F;Downloads windows have weird UX behaviors, should probably just be regular tabs, etc.

Stylish addon can do this. Install it then use userstyles website to find the custom script you need.

I try to change this week but I&#x27;m unable to make zoom to work well (Chrome is perfect to me. Safari not work neither).Exist a way to make it work? (ie: Maker a goblal zoom and a per-domain&#x2F;page)

What exactly do you mean? (Honest question) Firefox works great on my tablet.

I really want to like Firefox (or any of the alternative browsers mentioned here for that matter), but I frequently use my Surface in tablet mode and the only browsers with acceptable touch screen support on Windows are Edge and Chrome. Last I checked, this still didn&#x27;t seem to be a priority for Firefox.

well there&#x27;s always vivaldi or chromium if you want to slowly wein yourself off google

Yeah I don&#x27;t like to change habits, I have been using chrome for as long as it has been around, but when I read that last week I made the jump to firefox. Honestly, outside of not having the option to mute sites (as opposed to muting tabs), I can barely tell the difference. Also it makes it harder than chrome to manage site specific permissions. You have to go into the settings and add some exceptions instead of just changing a setting in top left corner while on the site. But it&#x27;s otherwise a smooth transition.

&gt; Container tabs are a similarly interesting idea with a weird implementation that requires you to micromanage your tabs, which I certainly don&#x27;t want to, and provides a &quot;techie&quot; solution to something that should just be invisible and default (i.e. all web sites should be &quot;contained&quot;).All websites contained would be an interesting default. With ways to “re-open current tab in container [X]” and “merge current tab with container [Y],” it would involve less micromanaging. That’s still not invisible, the container process and UX warrants plenty of thought.

&gt; Container tabs are a similarly interesting idea with a weird implementation that requires you to micromanage your tabs, which I certainly don&#x27;t want toYou might want to take a look at the Firefox Multi-Account Containers Add-on, it lets you set domains to always open in a given container, which cuts down on the micromanagement a lot once you get it &quot;trained&quot;. [edit: This is not well-advertised, it&#x27;s accessed through the context menu (right-click) on a page when you have it open in that container]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;multi-account-containers&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;multi-account-conta...</a>&gt; i.e. all web sites should be &quot;contained&quot;It&#x27;s possible to enable this for most intents and purposes with &quot;1st party isolation&quot;, which came from the Tor browser. Some info here:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ctrl.blog&#x2F;entry&#x2F;firefox-fpi" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ctrl.blog&#x2F;entry&#x2F;firefox-fpi</a>

I keep finding myself idly wondering... how hard would it _really_ be to write my own modern browser?

It is funny how people have wildly different experiences. I mainly use firefox on MacOS, use Safari and chrome daily, but a tenth as much. I find firefox to be the best in every way, except maybe battery where safari wins. But I don&#x27;t even notice that.

In Firefox preferences, you can change the address bar&#x27;s suggestions to list history&#x2F;bookmark matches before search suggestions Or to remove search suggestions altogether.

I&#x27;m not sure I completely understand what you dislike about container tabs.For me, I find them very useful. It&#x27;s convenient, for example, to be able to have two side-by-side Gmail tabs open. e.g. one for work email, and one for personal email.

I have terrible results with mobile safari suggesting items from my bookmarks. I constantly try to go to reddit and get auto completion of a different website that starts with ‘re’, repeatedly. I’ve tried to combat this to no avail.

You probably have search suggestions in firefox turned off (they may be off by default?).Works for me when I flip it on <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.stack.imgur.com&#x2F;0ZfvX.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.stack.imgur.com&#x2F;0ZfvX.png</a> . I keep it off because I don&#x27;t like having my every keystroke in the address bar sent to Google.

I wish Firefox was as sleek, fast and no-nonsense as Safari on the Mac, which is my everyday browser. I vastly prefer the idea of an open browser that is not tightly coupled to a particular industry giant. And I wish Firefox actually had a viable Safari competitor on iOS, so that I can sync my state around.Unfortunately, while Firefox has made significant leaps the last couple of years, it&#x27;s still not a viable alternative to Safari for me. It doesn&#x27;t feel particularly native (neither the &quot;chrome&quot; nor form controls etc.), and the UX is still clunky compared to native Mac-first apps.One particular way in which Safari absolutely beats Firefox is the address bar. Most of the autocompletions that Safari provide are exactly what I want. As an example, if I type &quot;mapq&quot; into Safari, it suggests mapquest.com (a site I&#x27;ve never visited before, so this is not based on anything from my history). For Firefox, it suggests a Googles search for &quot;mapquest&quot;, which is just stupid. Aside from suggesting web sites, Safari is superb at showing good results (Wikipedia is often a top hit), and it is awesome at providing autocompletions from my bookmarks and history.Firefox also seems a bit lost when it comes to innovating, and keeps coming up with weak concepts that don&#x27;t get any tractions; Personas comes to mind. Container tabs are a similarly interesting idea with a weird implementation that requires you to micromanage your tabs, which I certainly don&#x27;t want to, and provides a &quot;techie&quot; solution to something that should just be invisible and default (i.e. all web sites should be &quot;contained&quot;).

Not on Android, and not when you install some other piece of software that surreptitiously bundles Chrome and sets it to default: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;forums.adobe.com&#x2F;thread&#x2F;1053973" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;forums.adobe.com&#x2F;thread&#x2F;1053973</a>

I recently moved back to Firefox from Vivaldi. It&#x27;s been a good move.I feel like Firefox is back in the same boat it was in the 90s, but this time fighting Google Chrome instead of IE. But it&#x27;s a bit different since you have to explicitly download Chrome. It&#x27;s a bit different since you see an ad to download it right when you hit Google.

I started using Firefox because I literally coudn&#x27;t use Chrome anymore on my PC. Every time I opened Chrome it would hard lock and I needed to ctrl-alt-del, end-task. Even re-installing and clearing out cache and folders didn&#x27;t help. I haven&#x27;t been able to open Chrome for months. Using Firefox for 1 week was a bit of usability shock. But it&#x27;s so awesome once you get used to it. Everything is indeed so much more thoughtful. Every feature.

I&#x27;d use firefox despite its schizophrenic features, if it were at least as responsive as chrome, on my mostly-idle home desktop.Maybe one day, mozilla. Maybe one day.

I use Firefox every now and then just for reading articles so my main browser doesn&#x27;t get bloated with tabs, but it runs far from fantastic on my computer for some reason.whenever a page loads all the elements move around for a second or two before they settle in their right place. that would crack me up if I had to put up with that all day

It&#x27;s the best browser objectively, because it has tree style tabs, it&#x27;s also a bad browser because it doesn&#x27;t have a native support for tabs on the side.

I&#x27;m a Mozillian who worked on MDN for 5 years, and now work on Firefox Privacy &amp; Security. Most relevantly, I wrote the patch that implements strict-origin-when-cross-origin Referrer policy in Private Browsing Mode.I certainly trust the MDN team to understand how to arrange their content to match their audience.I also believe web developers should be more informed about the privacy &amp; security issues of their work. The content you tried to add was verbose without any technical detail or links, and the MDN revision history isn&#x27;t a great space for content discussion.Have you tried filing a content bug? It&#x27;s much easier to converse on bugzilla than thru edit battles.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bugzilla.mozilla.org&#x2F;form.doc?bug_file_loc=https%3A&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bugzilla.mozilla.org&#x2F;form.doc?bug_file_loc=https%3A&#x2F;...</a>

Except, by default their primary product was the interface by which may of their users got targeted. They&#x27;ve sat on their hands on privacy for years, offering features for the informed minority, not protecting the majority of their users. It&#x27;s been Safari and Brave that have started to show proper leadership in protecting users.Recent attempts I&#x27;ve been making to help teach web developers about the dangers of referers, before they add more tracking pixels or leak reset password links get deleted by Mozilla technical writers because&quot;
We don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s appropriate to have a red warning banner at the tops of the pages. That kind of design element is one we try to avoid on MDN unless it&#x27;s highlighting the very first thing you need to know about the item, which we don&#x27;t think it is in this case, although we do appreciate that it is important.&quot;Great idea, let&#x27;s leave the wet floor warning as a note at the end of the corridor.See here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;docs&#x2F;Web&#x2F;HTML&#x2F;Element&#x2F;img$compare?locale=en-US&amp;to=1419222&amp;from=1419039" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;docs&#x2F;Web&#x2F;HTML&#x2F;Element&#x2F;im...</a>

I&#x27;d like to add that the Firefox DevTools are excellent now. For a long time there was this weird stuff with built-in devtools but-you-still-kinda-needed-FireBug and it was a mess (a sufficiently big mess to keep me on a random Blink-based browser), but these days it&#x27;s just great.Firefox is a truly great browser, they really made amazing improvements on all fronts in the last years. And I say this as someone who never used Firefox as their daily driver until half a year ago or so.

It always was. When I started using Firefox it was an alternative to IE6. It was the browser you used if you were a web developer because it had things like Firebug (which Google copied and integrated into Chrome). Chrome didn&#x27;t convert many Firefox users, it just did a much better job of converting IE users than Firefox ever did, but that&#x27;s no surprise given that they could directly market it to users through google.com.Chrome initially was faster than Firefox because it lacked features. This is a common pattern if you&#x27;ve been in this business long enough. Firefox itself was originally the fast-but-cut-down version of Mozilla. Like Firefox, Chrome quickly gained features and bloat and became just as slow as Firefox and everything before it.

Container tabs can do that from a isolation perspective, though bookmarks will be shared. I have &quot;banking&quot;, &quot;google services&quot;, &quot;facebook&quot;, and the default for other stuff.&gt;So many sites don&#x27;t work correctly in FirefoxI&#x27;ve not experienced that.

Biggest drawback to me after trying Firefox are the lack of simple profiles, as in Chrome, which let me separate work from personal from school when browsing, and the fact that all web development is done for Chrome. So many sites don&#x27;t work correctly in Firefox that I eventually had to give up on it and move back.

Firefox is a truly fantastic browser now. I&#x27;ve been using it again for about 2 years and haven&#x27;t regretted it at all. There have been a couple of weird feature hiccups but generally Mozilla seems to get things right.

It&#x27;s a Google reference. LGTM is their approval acronym for change control.&quot;Looks&#x2F;looking good to me&quot;

I&#x27;m not sure that&#x27;s true. Facebook numbers have been falling for a while and I&#x27;m sure part of that is backlash over privacy abuses. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.recode.net&#x2F;2018&#x2F;2&#x2F;12&#x2F;16998750&#x2F;facebooks-teen-users-decline-instagram-snap-emarketer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.recode.net&#x2F;2018&#x2F;2&#x2F;12&#x2F;16998750&#x2F;facebooks-teen-use...</a>

&gt; These things are far too opaque for the general public to understand or care about.Or perhaps your preference is a minority opinion, and most people will trade privacy for convenience even when fully informed and aware of Google&#x27;s behavior

&gt; They’ll keep doing stuff like this until it reaches some publicly unacceptable limitWhich as we know from things like Facebook, that limit will never be reached. These things are far too opaque for the general public to understand or care about. Even we software engineers barely understand the scope of what Google is capable of. It&#x27;s going to take a principled stance from within the industry to push back against the encroachment of these corporations on personal privacy.

If Google&#x27;s decision-making processes were as blatantly short-sighted as you seem to make them out to be, they would have prevented ad blockers years ago.

Google is incentivized to do this, they make good money off of it. It’s boring and true. They’ll keep doing stuff like this until it reaches some publicly unacceptable limit.Until then use browsers like Firefox or Safari where the incentive to be creepy is far smaller.

Well google is an ad company so you don’t need to wonder who’s in charge of their core products

And this somewhat related bug, when you&#x27;re in view-source:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bugs.chromium.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;chromium&#x2F;issues&#x2F;detail?id=882902&amp;can=4&amp;q=&amp;colspec=ID%20Pri%20M%20Stars%20ReleaseBlock%20Component%20Status%20Owner%20Summary%20OS%20Modified" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bugs.chromium.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;chromium&#x2F;issues&#x2F;detail?id=882902...</a>Whoever was in charge of the updates to the URL bar seems to be lacking something. But at least the URL doesn&#x27;t show &quot;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;&quot;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;&quot;</a> anymore, I guess?

Marketing is in charge, of course.  This has been abundantly clear for years if not from the outset.

This + the screwup of hiding &quot;.m.&quot; and &quot;.www.&quot; substrings in URLs + the public threat of getting rid of URLs entirely = patience wearing very thin. Also, enabling webUSB and webMIDI by default earlier, both of which apparently unneccesarily exposed vulnerabilities makes me wonder who&#x27;s in charge, marketing or security engineering?

I just recently visited a site (afterschool program) that silently failed for me using Mac Chrome where Safari worked fine. All other assets other than the login form loaded making me wonder what I was missing.I almost missed a mandatory form that finally resolved by calling the number on the contact page. This is the sort of thing that used to be the other way around...

Performance may have been an issue years ago, but nowadays safari is just as fast and consistent at rendering. I use safari as my default now, including for web dev, and have chrome ready in the rare case I need it.

Web Developer here. I find Safari to be much faster than Chrome. I still use Chrome as my &quot;work&quot; browser due to the ecosystem of useful extensions (react, graphql, a11y, etc). But I close Chrome at 5pm, and when I need to do non-developer-y things, Safari is a much more pleasant experience (especially now that it has favicons).

It’s tough to use Safari if you’re a web developer; Chrome tends to be better at rendering pages and in overall performance, as well as adopting features quicker than Apple.

On Android, and desktop for that matter, Brave is a nice chrome fork with all the anti-privacy garbage stripped and a built in ad blocker.

&gt; Edge on Windows is pretty good too.Edge is not a bad browser at all, however if you are signed in Windows it will do same shit - sync everything automatically so I would avoid using it if you care about privacy.

At least on iOS and macOS I see no reason not to use Safari, Edge on Windows is pretty good too. Power users will stop recommending Chrome to the average user after these changes and over time market share will hopefully decline.

&gt; For all we know, the new approach has privacy implications even if sync is off. The Chrome developers claim that with “sync” off, a Chrome has no privacy implications. This might be true. But when pressed on the actual details, nobody seems quite sure.This seems more like, I&#x27;m being told the thing I&#x27;m worried about isn&#x27;t happening, but I don&#x27;t believe it.Which is fine, but not sure what&#x27;s changed with what&#x27;s being done, rather than a change making clearer what&#x27;s possible (when signed into google, chrome has your google cookie).&gt; For example, if I have my browser logged out, then I log in and turn on “sync”, does all my past (logged-out) data get pushed to Google? What happens if I’m forced to be logged in, and then subsequently turn on “sync”? Nobody can quite tell me if the data uploaded in these conditions is the same. These differences could really matter.Again, how is that possibility any different than before this change?It seems this is mostly a well intentioned (for a subset of chrome users) but poorly thought out UI change (giant blue button).

I know. I was just trying to help another poor soul like myself in the interim of figuring out how to switch. For me at least, it&#x27;s very nontrivial work.

That was also my argument against all the &quot;hacks&quot; people posted online against Windows 10 tracking. Most of them were short-lived because Microsoft had an incentive to stop them from being used in the next update of Windows.

It seems as though the needed escape hatch is a browser that simply CAN&#x27;T send info about you back to home base. Firefox might qualify, but I don&#x27;t know for sure, and I don&#x27;t want that to be our only option. There&#x27;s a lot of great engineering that goes into Chrome.So I&#x27;m wondering: Is enough code open sourced to make it possible for an organization such as Apache, GNU, or whatever, to create a sanitized fork of each new version of Chrome? This would be a version of Chrome with no privileged party other than its user. Every other party would be limited to the same set of features (cookies, local storage, etc.) that apply to all 2nd parties.

&gt; When you&#x27;re looking for escape hatches, you know the software is working against you.I would say that when you&#x27;re looking for escape hatches, you know the defaults don&#x27;t match your personal preferences. I understand why some people don&#x27;t like combined login. However, I personally prefer it, and I guess that the decision to add it was made on the basis of believing that most people would feel like I do, or at worst feel neutral.

That is how I feel about my use of youtube-dl.But youtube is so damn entrenched nowadays...

When you&#x27;re looking for escape hatches, you know the software is working against you. At that point, it&#x27;s better to move to an alternative browser, it&#x27;s not worth it to fight it with hacks. If too many people use the escape hatch, they&#x27;ll remove it.

Thanks for letting me know! For some reason I don&#x27;t see that on my toolbar, though I haven&#x27;t tried creating a new profile. I&#x27;m on Chrome 68 on Windows, if that might explain anything?

Maybe they&#x27;ve revised the flag, but the flag did not disable the feature as much as the text might lead you to believe. My comment from a couple weeks ago... <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17943524" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17943524</a>

Aw man. It&#x27;s working on 68! Guess I have to avoid upgrading for now. Thanks.

This flag is not really working. Just checked it (chrome 69.0.3497.100)

Question: How do I sign extensions I wrote for myself so I can actually use them, without uploading a copy of the extension somewhere? That&#x27;s my roadblocker right now. I don&#x27;t know how to migrate make my own extensions work on my own system without uploading them to other people&#x27;s servers. (Yes, I want Firefox stable. I don&#x27;t want to run a buggy browser.)

I feel this should be weighed into the decision: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@neothefox&#x2F;firefox-installs-add-ons-into-your-browser-without-consent-again-d3e2c8e08587" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@neothefox&#x2F;firefox-installs-add-ons-into-...</a>

A better escape hatch is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mozilla.org</a>Granted, Mozilla&#x27;s had their own issues and some apps &#x2F; sites may have become as dependent on Chrome as sites were on IE way back when. But given Google&#x27;s flexing their control muscles over the last few years, a clean break is probably the better long term solution.

For now at least, there&#x27;s this escape hatch: chrome:&#x2F;&#x2F;flags&#x2F;#account-consistencyEdit: Some are saying this doesn&#x27;t work on Chrome 69. :(

I just did the same because of this login shit. Long live Firefox.

Probably refers to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Daniel_J._Bernstein#Secure_software" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Daniel_J._Bernstein#Secure_sof...</a>. Almost an inside joke for cryptologists.

&gt; DJB’s custom search engineI can&#x27;t find anything on this, does anyone have more info?

I stopped using chrome a long time ago because its user experience was horrible and it ate up all my computers memory.  This would push me over the edge if I hadn&#x27;t already gone there.

Instead of erasing cookies, why not enable Firefox&#x27;s first-party isolation?

This is nice but id rather not try and guess which domains they use, tho i suppose trying to guess cookies may pose a similar problem.

The Mozilla container plugin is really good. Just set all google domains to automatically open in their own container. Takes 30 seconds to install and 30 seconds to set that configuration.

I use firefox and have an addon to specifically erase my google cookies when I close the browser. I don&#x27;t see a problem with this new chrome feature. Ive seen users logging into eachothers browser gmail, maybe google is democratizing the info they collect so everyone can access it? :) Ill point to this again <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youbroketheinternet.org&#x2F;trackedanyway" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youbroketheinternet.org&#x2F;trackedanyway</a>

Related: the morning Chrome updated itself to 69, it went into spinny-beach-ball hell (I had a zillion tabs open, which hadn&#x27;t been too many before). This mattered because I had a plane to catch, and info on my trip to review and save. It wasn&#x27;t immediately obvious why it was suddenly unusable, the first workarounds I tried didn&#x27;t help, and every step of trying things took a long time. (E.g. bookmark all tabs, close the window, and restart: now you&#x27;re just back seeing the same zillion tabs, where in previous versions with my setup this would come back with an empty window.)OK, things change and we&#x27;re kind of stuck going along for the sake of security updates, but going near-unusable at an important moment without obvious warning is a problem. (I&#x27;m looking at Firefox and Brave now too.)

Just watched youtube on the newest chrome it immediately brought my PC to a near-freeze status with 2GB swapped to disk, unusable. Opened firefox and it worked smoothly.This started to occur recently, combining with the fact that each chrome tab needs about 120MB memory along, yes it is about time to be back to firefox

If the power users can&#x27;t figure it out, is it less confusing for non-technical users?

I have a question for those people that don&#x27;t like this change in behavior:Doesn&#x27;t this change in behavior make things far less confusing for non-technical users?

No, I mean that I don&#x27;t want the plugin operating unless I need it to be operating.  And maybe the plugin is better now, but it used to agressively autofill my passwords into forms that were not password forms, and agressively ask me questions I did not want to be bothered answering.

Were you taking about the old plugin pre webextensions?Because I haven&#x27;t noticed any difference between Chrome and FF extensions now.

I switched to firefox (linux) several years ago for my main browser and I couldn&#x27;t be happer.  I also run chromium when some webpage isn&#x27;t working in firefox (rare) or when I need to use my companies LastPass account (I avoid LastPass in firefox because that plugin sucks balls), but I never use chromium for google services.  I run all google services in a &quot;google&quot; multi-account container in firefox.

Forcing users to sign in to their browser is simply bad taste. Ever since Sundar Pichai became CEO, Google changed for the worst. It’s very unfortunate.

Using Brave for a bit will give you some perspective on what sort of things (e.g. location) are being requested whenever you hit a Google-related page.

If this is your strategy, you&#x27;re going to also need to avoid google documents and signing into youtube.. and there&#x27;s also the fact that at some point you need to ask yourself if Chrome is really great enough to warrant using multiple browsers when Firefox containers take care of everything privacy related for you.

I log into my personal gmail and Facebook on Firefox and everything else on Chrome. I’ve been doing this for years now and I’m perfectly comfortable. For the most part I’ve forgotten about any differences between the two browsers.

Exactly! I&#x27;m really surprised they didn&#x27;t think of this…

I agree with Matthew that the supposed problem this is solving doesn&#x27;t seem to be an issue for the case where no one is logged in to Chrome. In addition it seems to me as if it has a non-invasive solution:If A is signed in to Chrome, and the user then signs into gmail as B, sign A out of Chrome, perhaps with a notification telling them what to do.

&quot;Listening in&quot; is inaccurate. &quot;Ok Google&quot; was opt-in only, and did not record users without consent. Chromium downloaded but didn&#x27;t run the binary blob.Previous discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9724409" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9724409</a>including Google&#x27;s perspective: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9735795" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9735795</a>

I think they could do that if they wanted, if you&#x27;re entering your root password during the install.

I always have my sound input&#x2F;mic levels set to zero in settings. They can&#x27;t bypass that.

<pre><code> Yesterday, news broke that Google has been stealth
 downloading audio listeners onto every computer that runs
 Chrome, and transmits audio data back to Google. Effectively,
 this means that Google had taken itself the right to listen
 to every conversation in every room that runs Chrome
 somewhere, without any kind of consent from the people
 eavesdropped on. In official statements, Google shrugged off
 the practice with what amounts to “we can do that”.
</code></pre>
Source: Google Chrome Listening In To Your Room Shows The Importance Of Privacy Defense In Depth<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.privateinternetaccess.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;google-chrome-listening-in-to-your-room-shows-the-importance-of-privacy-defense-in-depth&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.privateinternetaccess.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;google-ch...</a>

I’m a partially savvy user and was surprised when I went to view my recent tabs on (the new) Chrome for iOS and it has my recent desktop tabs on as well.Unsettling.

The EU at least have slapped Google with some modest fines. Hopefully their Chrome nonsense will get them one as well.

Thank God we have the GDPR protecting us from evil corporations, oh my god I love the EU

I feel so stupid for not knowing this existed; thanks a lot.

When you give a browser a 70% market share it will always start abusing its position. Same as last time.

Haha gov&#x27;t websites and banks here in my country is still best viewed (or only works) in Internet Explorer.

Seems that the days of &quot;Best viewed in browser X&quot; have come back sadly.

YouTube works fine for me in Firefox on OS X with 6 year old hardware.

Is that the same reason why reddit is so slow in Firefox?

Shadow DOM v0 is deprecated in Chrome and will be removed in April 2019. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developers.google.com&#x2F;web&#x2F;updates&#x2F;2018&#x2F;09&#x2F;chrome-70-deps-rems" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developers.google.com&#x2F;web&#x2F;updates&#x2F;2018&#x2F;09&#x2F;chrome-70-...</a>

fwiw if you read the rest of that thread on Twitter it explains that Youtube is not using Shadow DOM v0, the slowness is likely related to polyfills for HTML Imports, and the next version of Polymer no longer uses those to resolve issues like this.Also Chrome is actively removing the web standards that didn&#x27;t end up being adopted broadly:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;m&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;blink-dev&#x2F;h-JwMiPUnuU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;chromium.org&#x2F;forum&#x2F;m&#x2F;#!topic&#x2F;bli...</a>So YouTube will end up just as slow in other browsers unless they upgrade to a newer polymer that uses the broadly implemented standards.

YouTube fixed something a few days after that post. I no longer experience the slowness it was describing in Firefox.

Thanks for the update.Shame about all the conspiracy theories regarding this topic. It seemed likely enough to boil down to a logical explanation.

I&#x27;m on the Polymer team at Google. We&#x27;ve been helping the YouTube team, who&#x27;s been doing a ton of work to update to the final v1 version of the webcomponent specs. So far it&#x27;s a bit neck and neck between Firefox launching version 63 with native web component support (eta October) and YouTube switching the main desktop app over.These are new standards, and there were a number of breaking changes from the v0 specs to v1. It&#x27;s a lot of code to update, but we&#x27;re working super hard to get all of Google onto v1.

Oddly enough I haven&#x27;t had too many issues with YouTube&#x27;s slowness (as a Firefox user).  I mean, it&#x27;s slow, but &quot;tolerable&quot;.  It&#x27;s the new Gmail that&#x27;s horrifically slow now.  It takes a good 20 seconds to get to the point where I can interact with it, and then each interaction takes another 10 seconds.

This is like Microsoft and IE all over again.

I mean, polymer also broke most of the chromecast functionality in google&#x27;s own browser to the point that I have to use ?disable_polymer=1 to really use it at all from a browser (really I mostly just use it from my phone now), so this doesn&#x27;t seem terribly surprising by comparison.

Try using mpv + youtube-dl to stream Youtube. It even has playlist&#x2F;mix support.

For those who&#x27;ve switched over to Firefox recently and find Youtube inexplicably slow, it&#x27;s &quot;because YouTube&#x27;s Polymer redesign relies on the deprecated Shadow DOM v0 API only implemented in Chrome.&quot; [0]The YouTube Classic extension will speed things up: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;youtube-classic&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;youtube-class...</a>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cpeterso&#x2F;status&#x2F;1021626510296285185" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cpeterso&#x2F;status&#x2F;1021626510296285185</a>

They and Facebook were also funded by In-Q-Tel, the CIA&#x27;s venture fund.

It started at Stanford University and got its early funding from various tech people. Where did you hear otherwise?

Webkit and Safari were meant synonymous, Webkit referring to the framework, Safari to the specific application packaging.On a practical level, it&#x27;s been quite some time since Safari isn&#x27;t cross-platform anymore. Also, it&#x27;s fixed to a specific version of the operating system, which also applies to the open source Webkit release. I&#x27;d love to see an implementation with less external dependencies.

Something, I missed in the article, is Chrome&#x27;s background in WebKit. (Rather, it seems to convey the impression that this was an original project by Google.)Anyway, this may also directing us towards a viable alternative: A new, independent and cross-platform repackaging of WebKit2 &#x2F; WebCore.

Between this and their shady browser in China I&#x27;m starting to think Google just starting to become straight up evil.

Yeap. I left Firefox because it was slow. Now, Google wants everything. Plus, Chrome hogs all of CPU on relaunch now.With Quantum&#x27;s Servo, I&#x27;m going to give FF another bite at the proverbial apple.

It seems anti-competitive in historical Microsoft monopoly-regulated way with Google using GMail to give Chrome data.

These changes are really shocking. I’ve stopped using chrome a week ago for entirely different reasons and happy to hear one has managed to avoid sll this mess.
I’m using 3 different gapos accounts, that would be some serious mess.
Even if this change is reverted, I’m not going to switch back.
By chrome, it was nice for a pretty long time.

I switched to Firefox after the recent Chrome update. It&#x27;s awful.

Have reported there before and have gotten no attention to any issues previously posted. In my experience bugzilla has been a black hole and reaching out via public channels is more effective at influencing change in an organization. I understand that you may think this is uncouth but letting other people know publicly why their product isn&#x27;t being used is effective.

You don&#x27;t need developers to reach out to you, just file a bug report like a normal person.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bugzilla.mozilla.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bugzilla.mozilla.org&#x2F;</a>

If I flipped a light switch and the room caught on fire, I hope that your response won&#x27;t be:&quot;I&#x27;ve never seen this happen before and I&#x27;ve been in some pretty insane buildings&quot;I&#x27;ve never seen anything like it happen on any other website either, but yet here I am. The failure is so stark that I would have no idea where to begin debugging, and would likely need guidance from someone with more knowledge of the system so I wouldn&#x27;t waste days of my time. I&#x27;ve reported the issue in the past and gotten nowhere so here I am trying in a different avenue.

I’ve never seen this happen on any website, ever, and I’ve used the dev console on some pretty insane websites. Come up with minimal steps to reproduce and file a bug like a normal person, like the other comment suggests.People like me use Firefox for their paying job daily and somehow we still don’t find it beneath ourselves to file bugs.

I want to switch to Firefox, but the developer tools simply do not work at all. Every time I try to use the console on the site that I&#x27;m working on, the tab freezes and everything just stops working. (This immediately happens, not after a period of working and then bugging out) If any representative from Mozilla wants to reach out, I would be glad to help you fix your software because we need better competition in this space. (email is in my profile)Current Firefox version: 63.0b8
OS: mac OS High Sierra (10.13.6 17G65)

Another surprising dark pattern related to Google logins is that in recent versions, it&#x27;s basically impossible to log out from the Youtube Android app. It seems that Google is hell-bent on having everyone logged in to their services at all times.

Would multiple profile &#x2F; personas help for this?

When I last had to do it, adding a managed G Suite account to Chrome warns the user that it will allow the browser to be controlled by the organization. It would make sense that this same warning would show up in this scenario.

So if you pay for a G-suite account it&#x27;s safe to say google does not mine your data?

Another wrinkle with this: if your account is with a private G Suite instance, logging into the browser can have a profound effect since it will apply any management policies.  This will probably be sold as a security enhancement - you can’t access your organizations data without active management (at least, if you’re using Chrome), but for users with access to multiple G Suite domains, this will become a real nuisance.

Care to explain why Firefox is the most unsafe? I&#x27;ve been using it for a while now and the built-in privacy protections are great (would be better if they were on by default, but hey, we have this at least).

I left Chrome years ago, now my main browser is Safari. Firefox is the most unsafe browser in my opinion.

I try leaving Chrome every now and then but every time it turns out Firefox is just too slow to tolerate and this was the initial reason why I&#x27;ve moved to Chrome some years ago (yes, my PC is old and I make heavy use of extensions).

I use Google Chrome very casually, mostly for development exactly for the very same privacy concerns as people have so I stopped using the Google Account integration for a long time explicitly because of these worries. I was extremely surprised to randomly see the browser logged into the account I use for YouTube.As a user this is greatly worrying to me. I want my browser to not do anything like this without my explicit consent -- especially since I knowingly avoided doing it... I moved out as much of my digital identity from the Google Cloud as I could. I obviously can&#x27;t escape needing to use YouTube, but everything can&#x27;t be perfect.I gotta be honest, I have some worries regarding Firefox, too. Too often they have pulled shady things and got into bad with terrible people. (the unwanted advertising stuff being auto-downloaded for Mr. Robot, the &quot;fake news detector&quot; thing, etc. etc.)I find it extremely important to have good, independent open source alternatives to commercial web browsers and each step like this is a step towards one interest trying to take over the core of our internet experience. Pretty scary.

Once in a position of power the true colors show.

&gt;Money is the root of all evil.The love of money is the root of all evil.

Money is the root of all evil. That&#x27;s why they got rid of the mantra, as it meant &#x27;Do no money&#x27;... And they need to please share holders.I got rid of chrome when I noticed it hoggged my memory and CPU, and decided to try Firefox. Firefox is much more processor friendly for me at least.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;abc.xyz&#x2F;investor&#x2F;other&#x2F;google-code-of-conduct.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;abc.xyz&#x2F;investor&#x2F;other&#x2F;google-code-of-conduct.html</a>Don&#x27;t be evil is in the last line of Google&#x27;s Code of Conduct.

&gt; What happened to “do no evil”?It was considered &quot;stupid&quot; so they dropped it:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;5&#x2F;13&#x2F;4326424&#x2F;eric-schmidt-once-thought-dont-be-evil-was-stupidest-rule-ever" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;5&#x2F;13&#x2F;4326424&#x2F;eric-schmidt-once...</a>I thought that even if &quot;evil&quot; can&#x27;t be well-defined, its general meaning probably encouraged a culture that tried to focus on ethics. When your leader says that trying not to be evil is &quot;stupid&quot;, it has a different effect on the culture.

Firefox here I come. Google’s update, to automatically take an action on my computer that I specifically don’t want, is an egregious misuse of technology. This is what Microsoft might have done in the early 2000’s for which they were rightfully vilified.What happened to “do no evil”?

Why I&#x27;m leaving [Insert name of disliked social media network or web browser here]

I&#x27;ve successfully transitioned away from all google products with the exception of Android. It seemed impossible at first but all it took was a rpi3, dd-wrt router, free ddns from freedns.afraid.org, letsencrypt cert and nextcloud.