This was pretty inevitable, given the recent changes announced to Chrome that Google created to fight ad blockers. Why would they limit their fight to just that?

Doesn&#x27;t mean that Chrome isn&#x27;t a monopoly, with their current marketshare, if Chrome introduces a new feature or changes how some feature works, all competitors have no choice but to implement that change or websites stop working.

You need to think in terms of a de facto monopoly in this case:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;definitions.uslegal.com&#x2F;d&#x2F;de-facto-monopoly&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;definitions.uslegal.com&#x2F;d&#x2F;de-facto-monopoly&#x2F;</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;business-law.freeadvice.com&#x2F;business-law&#x2F;trade_regulation&#x2F;monopoly_power.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;business-law.freeadvice.com&#x2F;business-law&#x2F;trade_regul...</a>I don&#x27;t know if the 69% number from StatCounter would qualify as a de facto monopoly, but it&#x27;s close to the 75% number quoted in the previous article:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gs.statcounter.com&#x2F;browser-market-share&#x2F;desktop&#x2F;worldwide" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gs.statcounter.com&#x2F;browser-market-share&#x2F;desktop&#x2F;worl...</a>

Google Search can&#x27;t be a monopoly as Bing exists.Hey guys, remember Bing?

For Windows there is Firefox, and IE Edge. For the Mac their are both of those plus Safari.Not to mention Chromium based browsers.

This one has a significantly less sensationalized title than the other two, though.

Or maybe HN needs an autosuggest function, something similar to what SO has? &quot;These news were posted recently and match yours pretty closely, are you sure you want to post another one?&quot;

Or not? Let&#x27;s not bloat the website. Angolia HN works fine.

HN needs a better search function :)<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21232438" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21232438</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21231493" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21231493</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21233041" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21233041</a>

&gt; qualityYeah, that feature is a must. &#x2F;sSaying &quot;quality&quot; doesn&#x27;t actually mean anything. What exactly is &quot;quality&quot; in this case?

Firefox has better tooling for CSS (really good flexbox for e.g.) but it lacks on the JS side.One basic feature that is missing for e.g. is that one cannot open a file using the syntax filename:line:column in the source editor. You will need to navigate the line number manually after opening the file.

&gt; I am hopeful, but also I must say in my opinion Firefox is nowhere near Chrome when comparing performance, developer tooling and quality.I have the opposite experience. I use FF on all my computers and mobile, and when I sit behind some other dev&#x27;s Chrome the tools are simply atrocious. Maybe it&#x27;s not the quality that is different, but the way we use the tools? I might have &quot;aligned&quot; myself with FF, as you (and many others) have with Chrome.

&gt;baffled why they allowed for uBO for such a long timepotential &quot;10,000,000+ users&quot; pissed at Google is the reason, but why if we made it look like extension author was dodgy&#x2F;to blame? ... :(

&gt; Not surprised, but a bit baffled why they allowed for uBO for such a long time in the first place?because they weren&#x27;t dominant in the market, and it was a feature the market leading browers supportednow they are dominant they can throw their weight around

Not surprised, but a bit baffled why they allowed for uBO for such a long time in the first place?It looks as if they misused the community&#x27;s products and trust to build their monopoly and then kick us out once it&#x27;s gotten hard enough to compete.Perhaps this is a good thing in the long run, because now people will finally have to switch and maybe contribute to improving Firefox.I am hopeful, but also I must say in my opinion Firefox is nowhere near Chrome when comparing performance, developer tooling and quality.

I just looked it up, and apparently I misremembered a bit, it was actually because the app allowed YouTube background playback: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.androidpolice.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;05&#x2F;08&#x2F;kiwi-browser-removed-from-play-store-due-to-youtube-background-playback&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.androidpolice.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;05&#x2F;08&#x2F;kiwi-browser-remove...</a>The fact remains that Google was acting as a total monopoly when this decision was made.

Parent comment might be referring to Kiwi Browser, a closed source fork of Chromium for Android that allows desktop extensions.Though it&#x27;s currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback, not ad-blocking.Of course, you could always get the app from another store.- Kiwi Browser (Play Store): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=com.kiwibrowser.browser" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=com.kiwibrowse...</a>- Kiwi Browser (XDA): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;labs.xda-developers.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;app&#x2F;com.kiwibrowser.browser" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;labs.xda-developers.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;app&#x2F;com.kiwibrowser.br...</a>

&gt;someone published a browser on the play store which allowed users to install desktop browser extensions, one of which was an adblocker for YouTubeFirefox lets you do that on Android and obviously it hasn&#x27;t been removed from the Play Store. Do you remember any specifics?

Is anyone really surprised? Google makes all its revenue from ads. A couple months ago there was an incident where if I recall correctly, someone published a browser on the play store which allowed users to install desktop browser extensions, one of which was an adblocker for YouTube, and it was removed with vague reasons?Google has been taking steps for a long time to make it harder for adblockers to work on Chrome, and this is only the latest in the trend.uBO works just fine on Firefox, both on mobile and desktop.

Agreed. Plus it doesnt have Picture-in-pictureBut I use FF as my main

Firefox scroll lags like 500ms behind my input, on my mbp. How does anyone live like that?

I would interpret efficiency in terms of resource usage, not just clock time.

Is your firefox using Webrender?Vanilla firefox is slower than chrome but WebRender is noticeably faster than chrome. Chrome on a 4K monitor slows down to a crawl, but WebRender handles it like a champ. It can be easily enabled with a flag.

You should try installing the extensions that help FF become faster than Chrome: Privacy Badger, uBlock Origin and optionally HTTPS Everywhere.

I don&#x27;t know why people choose their browser based on resource usage. You can have a browser run by a company looking to loot the public good for their own gain, or a non-profit looking to keep the web open and free.Hold on I&#x27;m going to pick the one that&#x27;s marginally faster and more ram efficient...

I can&#x27;t notice any real difference, having been using Nightly (dev) edition for a full year now. Incidentally, my company (one of the largest tech in the world) uses Firefox by default (and nobody had any reason to switch).Google simply can&#x27;t be trusted with all that ads stuff

Have you tried a fresh profile as a test? It’s possible you have about:config settings or other random hacker detritus that may be leading to slowness.

Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox.Phoronix&#x27;s tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago:&quot;As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google&#x27;s web browser continues generally delivering better performance.&quot;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.phoronix.com&#x2F;scan.php?page=article&amp;item=firefox69-chrome77-tests&amp;num=3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.phoronix.com&#x2F;scan.php?page=article&amp;item=firefox6...</a>

Chrome extensions should generally work on Firefox anyway. It&#x27;s a slightly different packaging process, but that&#x27;s the only difference.

Brave looks really cool, but it uses chromium so its hands are forever tied to google. I remember they considered Gecko but rejected it for some reason.

If you&#x27;re a vim user, try qutebrowser. It has some quirks, but with the ability to customize keyboard shortcuts and call upon scripts it&#x27;s hard to move back to a &quot;normal&quot; browser.

I use an add-on that adds a close button to the address bar: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;android&#x2F;addon&#x2F;tab-close-webext&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;android&#x2F;addon&#x2F;tab-close-web...</a>

Click on three dots close all tabs. You can also close just all private tabs.It also tends to unload unused tabs and perform pretty well with ridiculous amounts of tabs so if you forget to bother it won&#x27;t perform much worse.

While I agree the swipe is too long sometimes, there is still an &quot;X&quot; above every tab

Only downside to Firefox mobile is its crummy tab management. Especially when browsing in landscape mode it takes an incredibly long swipe to dismiss a tab. I don&#x27;t think I go a week without yelling &quot;oh my God, go away!&quot; at my phone after failing to close a tab after multiple tries.

Your phone is probably one of the ones that came out with bad RAM and is defective, it works great on both my Moto Z Play and Moto G6 Play.

I see this all the time and I think it is unhelpful to make these kinds of statements. I can make a counterpoint that I&#x27;ve used FF on Android for years and never experienced any issues whatsoever. I am not trying invalidate your experience, but want to point out anecdotes don&#x27;t really paint a fair picture for either side of the argument.For example, how do we know my good experience and your bad experience are not easily explained by hardware differences? If so, what does that say?

Have you tried Firefox Preview? It’s a new, revamped version of Firefox for Android.

Unfortunately the Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone (moto z play) and noticeably slower.I gave it a hard try, but it just wasn&#x27;t workable.Still using Firefox on all desktop&#x2F;laptop devices, though.

&gt; And the last update is forcing dns over https that for some reasons keeps get reenabled all the time.That isn&#x27;t true -- there&#x27;s something else going on. Is DoH enabled in preferences? How are you verifying this - have you seen <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.mozilla.org&#x2F;kb&#x2F;firefox-dns-over-https" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.mozilla.org&#x2F;kb&#x2F;firefox-dns-over-https</a> ?

Using firefox for the last year. It&#x27;s slower , bloatted - 3 or more GB ram used.And the last update is forcing dns over https that for some reasons keeps get reenabled all the time. Constant issues with ssl handshake.I am almost ready to go back to Chrome.

I can&#x27;t seem to right scroll under firefox.  What am I doing wrong?

It&#x27;s really annoying. If you have a matching app installed there&#x27;s an Android icon in the URL bar to open it in that app instead, but it&#x27;s an extra step.

I highly recommend Firefox preview. It&#x27;s really fast, no ads and trackers blocked without extensions. They also put the address bar at the bottom which is so much better.

Try long-clicking on a link to YouTube. If you have an appropriate app installed (either official YouTube or sth like Newpipe) the last item in the menu popping up should be sth like &quot;open with $APP&quot;The same is true for some other applications

Ad blocking on your first example, YouTube, is actually one of my favorite things about Firefox Mobile.Fuck watching half a minute of ads on YouTube before the thing I actually wanted.

That functionality is actually there. For any website that you visit where your phone also has an app to open those links in, a little Android head will appear in the address bar you and you can touch that to open with the app. Not intuitive really but it always works well once you get used to it.

I&#x27;m using Firefox for a while now (both on desktop and mobile) and I love it. 
The only missing part for me on Android is that Firefox doesn&#x27;t open native apps (YouTube, maps, Instagram etc..) when you open a link. The integration with built in apps like chrome has is not there.

Any idea if MS is going to skip the manifest v3 changes that will kill uBlock Origin next year?

I’m avoiding it because I don’t want Blink to be the only engine around.

You&#x27;re surprised geeks are talking about open source over microsoft?

I’m really surprised no one is mentioning the new chromium-based MS Edge (still in Beta). They removed all the Google tracking and login nonsense, and it’s fast.Edge Beta on macOS has been my daily driver (and dev browser) for a month (switched to it from Firefox, actually), and my only gripe is the extension story isn’t yet complete. The MS store only has a few extensions, and you have to jump through a couple of hoops to install from the Chrome store.

Chrome has something similar built in called profiles, each profile is a unique session (like incognito except it persists)

is this just for windows&#x2F;linux (desktop) installs of firefox? or is android included in this feature?

profiles is close. better in some ways (absolutely arbitrarily grouping), worse in others (not automatic, so user-error prone)

I don&#x27;t get why this lives in an extension. It&#x27;s even advertised in the options, but requires downloading a separate component. Creating an awkward experience as what looks like a core feature lives in an external module. I imagine there is a non-zero number of users who look at containers then opt not to use it because of the download requirement.

+1 for this. Takes a bit of configuring before you have it all working seemlessly, and it&#x27;s probably not ready for non-tinkerers - yet - but it&#x27;s really powerful.

I love it. Wish container settings would be synced though:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mozilla&#x2F;multi-account-containers&#x2F;issues&#x2F;339" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mozilla&#x2F;multi-account-containers&#x2F;issues&#x2F;3...</a>
#1 most requested feature so there&#x27;s hope, although it&#x27;s been open for over two years. Maybe now that the new bookmark sync mechanism is rolled out in Firefox 70, the sync team may have capacity for a new task.

Thank you for posting this, never realized such a thing existed. Makes it easy to maintain different identities. It&#x27;s made by Mozilla too. Wonder why it isn&#x27;t a core feature of Firefox.

&quot;Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I&#x27;m pretty sure such functionality doesn&#x27;t exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other.&quot;Remind me - is this different than the &quot;Container Tab&quot; choice in the File menu ?I find the built-in container functionality in Firefox to be surprisingly awkward and poorly thought out ...For instance, the very first use-case that I attempted (create a Window, not a tab and have all new tabs inherit that same container) is impossible.It also appears to be impossible to clear the history of just a container.These are basic use-cases that came up, immediately, in a cursory exploration of the feature - I wasn&#x27;t digging deep to find these ...

Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon.  I&#x27;m pretty sure such functionality doesn&#x27;t exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other.  It&#x27;s one of the best reasons to switch to Firefox, in my opinion.

This is a pattern that shows up in other contexts as well. Linux on the desktop, git etc. have communities of advicates that tend to dismiss complaints and criticism far too strongly. That isn&#x27;t to say that there are more reasonable people in these communities - there are plenty - but the forceful pushback is very visible and tends to be quite offputting.

It&#x27;s no skin off my nose if you want to feed Google, but personally I have no idea what you&#x27;re talking about as there&#x27;s never been something I couldn&#x27;t do on firefox.

When I switched to Firefox from Chrome I certainly encountered some bumps in the road which almost caused me to go back. A few functionality gaps (I really the double-tap to zoom to a &#x27;block&#x27; of content), but I think the biggest thing was that some of my day-to-day workflows couldn&#x27;t be exactly replicated in Firefox.Of course, now I&#x27;m used to Firefox, and my routine is centred on it - so now when I fire up Chrome, I have the same experience in reverse.I don&#x27;t think Firefox advocates should under-play the amount of time and disruption the shift to Firefox involves: but I do think it&#x27;s worth doing. While there are a few things I miss, Firefox meets all my needs and more.

Arguing and downvoting is just how people and internet work. This has nothing to do with Mozilla culture. Rest assured the engineers of Mozilla are doing their best to make the product superior, independent of the principles difference.

I used Firefox before Chrome and have tried to swap numerous times in the past (and have been using it for the last few weeks).Advocates for Firefox often say &quot;Firefox is better, just try switching!&quot; yet when people point out reasons it&#x27;s not better the response is &quot;Oh those don&#x27;t matter, you&#x27;re just being nitpicky!&quot;But it&#x27;s not a very gentle push back, it&#x27;s forceful.In this thread someone says &quot;I don&#x27;t like how much ram Firefox uses&quot; and the response is&gt; I don&#x27;t know why people choose their browser based on resource usage.and&gt; Exactly. Come on, we&#x27;re engineers we understand basic tradeoffs.Firefox, as a product, has many issues when compared to Chrome. Why does everyone spend so much of their breath arguing against the real concerns and problems people have with it? Chrome has been getting worse in lots of major ways, Firefox has a chance to be the better product for a wider audience.But Firefox won&#x27;t become better with a culture of downvoting and arguing against criticism rather than trying to understand it. This is not the culture of Mozilla as far as I know, but it&#x27;s the culture of many Firefox advocates all across the internet.

I switched (back) to firefox after the quantum update and havent looked back. I haven&#x27;t used chrome in years so im not able to compare performance but I&#x27;ve had nice issues in that department with ff. I use brave for mobile.

I only use chrome when I need access to my google account (gmail), so my FF is completely disconnected from my google account.FF is really on par with chrome for me, with the exception of few extreme performance applications like webgl.

&gt; switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It&#x27;s fasterWhat platform are you referring to? Is it faster on macs too?

&gt; Google has been REALLY dropping the ball in the last 2-5 years.Nope, they&#x27;re in the advertising biz now. They aren&#x27;t so much &quot;dropping the ball&quot; as playing a ballgame (extremely well) that you dislike (because it&#x27;s harmful and exploitative and destroys the tools you love).They&#x27;re just a new microsoft. Or since they&#x27;re in a particular phase of that development, let&#x27;s say a new M$. Embrace, extend, exploit.

&quot;What&#x27;s a NEW Google product that you actually like&quot;Robots that kill people? Come on, there are people that think that&#x27;s cool.

Not sure what you mean about Firefox dying; the software is the best it&#x27;s ever been, relative to other browsers. The market numbers are still down though.

&gt; What&#x27;s a NEW Google product that you actually like (that they didn&#x27;t acquire)?... It seems like they give a half-assed attempt at creating new products as a way to keep skilled talent at Google rather than having them leave to work for Facebook or Apple.What new products have Apple or, seriously?, Facebook created that you actually like?Pretty sure people aren&#x27;t leaving Google for Apple &amp; Facebook because they want to build good new products.

Firefox is really dying compared to Chrome but I honestly think this is going to cause it to rebound.People aren&#x27;t going to be happy without uBlock and Ad Block...Google has been REALLY dropping the ball in the last 2-5 years. What&#x27;s a NEW Google product that you actually like (that they didn&#x27;t acquire)?They literally CAN NOT build new products that people like.... all their hardware products suck. New things like Google Allo exist for like a year and then they are killed.It seems like they give a half-assed attempt at creating new products as a way to keep skilled talent at Google rather than having them leave to work for Facebook or Apple.They&#x27;re actually DECENT at large acquisitions but that&#x27;s the only thing that&#x27;s saved them.It&#x27;s really a shame because Chrome is actually a GREAT browser but I won&#x27;t use it without ad blocking.I&#x27;ve already migrated to Firefox on my phone and it&#x27;s been pretty great so far. It also supports extensions on mobile which is huge!

&gt; I tried several times to use Firefox as my default browser, but eventually I switched back to Chrome, due to some weird issues I got at some sites.You can report those issues to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcompat.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcompat.com</a> -- if they are Firefox issues, they will be logged and hopefully fixed.

I tried several times to use Firefox as my default browser, but eventually I switched back to Chrome, due to some weird issues I got at some sites.I still hate what Google is doing for Chrome and I&#x27;m now using a dual browser strategy... I use Firefox and Chrome at the same time, with a preference to Firefox.

Could you please share what this setting is, and how to access it?

I switched to Firefox for Android after several attempts by DoubleClick to infect my device with malware. Funnily enough Chrome does ship with a setting which makes this kind of hijacking a lot harder. It was off by default and hidden in an obscure menu that wasn&#x27;t accessible via the UI. Enabling it for everyone would probably lose them too much ad revenue I suspect.

Firefox Focus is also a thing. A permanent incognito mode browser is an ideal candidate for the default browser position.

Maybe you can report it with this tool?
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcompat.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcompat.com&#x2F;</a>

There are some sites that don&#x27;t work well in Firefox, like Cisco&#x27;s WebEx. The web client will disconnect and reconnect causing everyone to constantly hear a disconnect and entry beep when your audio cuts out. On Chromium there is no problem on the same machine. This is on Xubuntu Linux.

&gt; the Android version of Firefox is excellent
Keeps crashing on me daily, multiple times even.

I&#x27;ve been trying to do this but for some odd reason it&#x27;s really slow on Mac. Been trying to figure out why but I don&#x27;t see any solutions. Perhaps someone here knows.

Firefox also offers the Tree Style Tab extension. If you’re working with limited screen real estate (e.g., smaller laptop) it may not be ideal, but on a full-sized monitor browsing the internet without it feels downright antiquated.My hierarchy of browsers looks like this. FF is my default, along with an extensive suite of security and privacy extensions including uBlock Origin. Very rarely, I’ll encounter an issue with a site, and I’ll fall back to Brave. Exceptionally rarely, I’ll fall back from Brave to Chrome, but I can’t remember right now the last time I needed to do that.

The Linux desktop Firefox sandbox is pretty strong AFAICT. All the usual namespace protection, pretty good seccomp filter. I wonder what the issue they&#x27;re referring to is and whether that comment is up to date (the sandbox has improved a lot over the last few years).The WebView argument is basically an argument for monoculture: you should only have one browser engine installed because that&#x27;s less attack surface than two, and since Chromium must be installed for reasons, it must be Chromium. That&#x27;s actually kind of a weak argument since it&#x27;s not that common for users to load a specific attack in both browser engines.

I like Mozilla&#x27;s principles in theory, but this warning from the user guide for GrapheneOS [1] (successor to CopperheadOS) is alarming, and applies to more than just Android:&gt; Avoid Gecko-based browsers like Firefox as they&#x27;re currently much more vulnerable to exploitation and inherently add a huge amount of attack surface. Gecko doesn&#x27;t have a WebView implementation (GeckoView is not a WebView implementation), so it has to be used alongside the Chromium-based WebView rather than instead of Chromium, which means having the remote attack surface of two separate browser engines instead of only one. Firefox &#x2F; Gecko also bypass or cripple a fair bit of the upstream and GrapheneOS hardening work for apps. Worst of all, Firefox runs as a single process on mobile and has no sandbox beyond the OS sandbox. This is despite the fact that Chromium semantic sandbox layer on Android is implemented via the OS isolatedProcess feature, which is a very easy to use boolean property for app service processes to provide strong isolation with only the ability to communicate with the app running them via the standard service API. Even in the desktop version, Firefox&#x27;s sandbox is still substantially weaker (especially on Linux, where it can hardly be considered a sandbox at all) and lacks support for isolating sites from each other rather than only containing content as a whole.So, despite concerns about monoculture, I guess Chromium-based browsers other than Chrome are the most practical solution for now.[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;grapheneos.org&#x2F;usage" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;grapheneos.org&#x2F;usage</a>

So this is timely. I was just testing out something I&#x27;m working out that creates, uh.. A LOT of DOM elements. Original dev work was in Chrome and I went over to Win 10 to test other browers. I was COMPLETELY blown away by how much faster FireFox was at recomputing layout.

It&#x27;s time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It&#x27;s faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions.The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

It&#x27;s not surprising they&#x27;d use that excuse as it allows them to reject extensions on entirely subjective criteria.

The single-purpose excuse is the same one they used to ban AdNauseam: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adnauseam.io&#x2F;free-adnauseam.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adnauseam.io&#x2F;free-adnauseam.html</a>

Hah, this is a really cool feature. For about two years, I managed this with multiple Firefox profiles instead, but this is a nicer integration.

It&#x27;s great, a lifesaver if you will, imagine logging into two accounts simultaneously, when developing, the ability to do that is not only superficial, but essential.

I am embarrassed to admit I hadn&#x27;t heard of containers. Nice to see it is a Mozilla extension. I am giving it a test right now.

Same here - FF for general web browsing and Microsoft Edge Dev for dev tooling on Windows.  I haven&#x27;t uninstalled Chrome completely yet but that day is quickly approaching.

Firefox with the containers extensions powers all of my browsing. In a bewildering turn of events, Microsoft Edge Dev powers my more intricate development needs.

The internet wasn&#x27;t made for Google. And if you think it serves users very well too then I suggest you read TFA, it is clear that what is good for Google and what is good for users are not aligned.

When you develop a browser, one of the main concern of the users is to be able to import their passwords, bookmarks or tabs.
Guess what, Chrome for Android doesn&#x27;t allow anyone to extract this data and bans apps who connects to their servers to fetch this information.
It&#x27;s violating GDPR, but fuck the law when you have billions. Too big to jail.

It doesn&#x27;t serve users in any sense that Firefox or another alternative can&#x27;t. It&#x27;s just been pushed so well by Google on all its devices and properties that users have been conditioned to think browser == Chrome.

Most users still don&#x27;t care about their browser.The main reason Chrome became so dominant is because:* Google search results nagged all users to install it for a better experience* bundled Chrome with countless free software downloads* it is the default browser on Android

It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too.I think it&#x27;s up to other browsers to offer better solutions.

An advertising company fielding a major distribution browser always was a really bad idea.

Link to the results: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cdn2.hubspot.net&#x2F;hubfs&#x2F;4231068&#x2F;Mobile-Web-Ad-Experiences-Ranking-02-18.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cdn2.hubspot.net&#x2F;hubfs&#x2F;4231068&#x2F;Mobile-Web-Ad-Experie...</a>Of course, everybody loves video ads, don&#x27;t we all ?

&gt;An independent study shows that YouTube ads and Search Ads are the ones that the users enjoy the mostPeople enjoy Youtube ads the most? That&#x27;s surprising to me given that they&#x27;re rather intrusive and they get between you and the content you actually want to see.

&gt; wouldn&#x27;t want to blockeverything that distracts or sends signals that have nothing to do with the intent of the user for visiting a site in the first place is an anti-pattern. I block all ads and even obstrusive elements using custom styles or UBO cosmetic filters...This shows especially well in older generations who are not very used to the information overflood and competition for attention on the internet. Mixing legitimate content with ads is the craziest pattern on the internet by far; and in untrained users -- most of the older ones -- this causes confusion, frustration and finally exhaustion with the medium.We who are used to this are just the internet user version of Pavlov&#x27;s dogs.

One of the main &quot;advantages&quot; (for Google) of manifest v3, is that there is, not only a blacklist, but also a whitelist of domains bundled with Google Chrome.
So the logic is to restrict adblockers, to use the internal Chrome adblock so Google can decide what ads are acceptable or not.An independent study shows that YouTube ads and Search Ads are the ones that the users enjoy the most and wouldn&#x27;t want to block ;)

No surprise; after the manifest v3 discussion, this development was to be expected and only a matter of time.

Couple that with geographic constraints and I guarantee you that&#x27;s true somewhere in the world.

No dating app represents most of your chance to meet people.I don&#x27;t believe that you have a meaningful right to use a website.

Not all apps have millions of users and make front page news. Now imagine how hard it is to contact anyone inside Google if your app&#x2F;extension is not that popular.

I wouldn&#x27;t imagine they&#x27;re impossible to challenge in cases like this. In fact I wager this post amounts to a challenge as it&#x27;s nearly guaranteed a Chrome extensions developer will see it.

If it is impossible to prevent concentration (and I don&#x27;t believe it is), then oligopolists will have to accept some legal obligations that smaller companies don&#x27;t have.It is simply unacceptable that you can be kicked off extremely dominant platforms without explanation or recourse and often without even getting your data back.There has to be a higher barrier to obliterating someone&#x27;s livelihood.

So I thought&#x2F;researched&#x2F;wrote for 10+ years about possible legal frameworks and regulation for the 21st century; and in the end it seems an untenable proposition to &#x27;force&#x27; such evolution by way of law, if we look at the actual history of most sectors — energy, construction, steel, media, telco... and now electronics and tech. I mean it&#x27;s wishful thinking and whatever &#x27;law&#x27; ends up being circumvented. Concentration is inevitable.What does seem to &#x27;work&#x27; is the subversion of one sub-market by another, e.g. when we transition from radio to TV, or when began the post-Facebook era. These are technological innovations. Political science taught me one thing: what changes the world is not what we think or say, it&#x27;s what we do, and the most groundbreaking actions are those who create the everyday things that change our lives in dramatic ways — mobile phones, cars, planes, TV, YouTube, Netflix, Maps, chats, what-you-use.Ergo, if we want a truly &quot;fair&quot; network, I think there&#x27;s no other way but to make one. A real innovation that pretty much owns the market of inter-human communication, eventually. Something the magnitude of netscape&#x2F;javascript at the end of the 1990s, or SMS, or Facebook versus everything else before, or streaming video and audio... a real shift in &#x27;what you can do&#x27; or the way you do it.

The problem is that you don&#x27;t. You can earn big money maintaining COBOL software on mainframes, no FAANG there. As long as it is a choice it will be really hard to do something about it.

There are several problematic patterns at play here, and not all of them are store monopolies: App stores are a clear cut issue since they&#x27;re a clear walled garden, but soft monopolies are even worse in my opinion. By soft monopolies I refer to those services whose utility is intrinsically tied to the number of users: youtube, social networks, messaging apps...I&#x27;m pretty sure I can build a tinder clone with cool extra features pretty easily - barring maybe the infrastructure to support a giant number of users and the legal issues of operating internationally. But such an app would be completely useless, since the point of the app is that their userbase can easily be half the dating pool of your city. The same idea is true for many internet businesses - once established they&#x27;re almost untouchable. they can&#x27;t be challenged unless they screw up royally or someone&#x27;s able to launch a giant enough marketing campaing that can bootstrap a large userbase in a matter of days.Join to that the tendency towards monolithic ecosystems (google, apple, to a lesser extent microsoft, huawei...) and the result is pretty scary.

Or we could just prosecute App Store monopolies. Nobody should ever have to go through google, or apple, or Microsoft, or Facebook, or amazon to publish software. The point of software is to be portable. I’m sick of buying artificially crippled crap.

Being stonewalled by bureaucracy with no explanation given is nothing new.

Once again sci-fi proves astonishingly prescient - this kind of world was predicted as early as 1965, in Gordon Dickson&#x27;s darkly humorous short story &quot;Computers Don&#x27;t Argue&quot; (which you can find on Google if you&#x27;re interested).

Judge, jury, executioner, central bank, and oxygen dispensary.These closed markets need to become open markets. Apply fair and impartial courts, jury trials, system of appeals, tort, etc.

&gt; on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they&#x27;re wronggiven how often this happens, and the money google makes off and puts into these systems, this is &quot;not either or&quot; but rather two flavors of &quot;on purpose&quot;

It&#x27;s not like Google really cares about the GDPR though. Pretty much none of their stuff complies with it.

I&#x27;m European, and pretty happy that the GDPR exists, but even I can&#x27;t deny that a law is just as strong as the ruler&#x27;s capacity to enforce it, and I&#x27;m a bit sceptical about the EU&#x27;s ability to effectively govern the whole internet.

Article 22 of the GDPR provides protection to individuals against purely automated decision making <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gdpr-info.eu&#x2F;art-22-gdpr&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gdpr-info.eu&#x2F;art-22-gdpr&#x2F;</a>

Indeed. A friend of mine used to work on YouTube&#x27;s moderation team. Turns out a lot of the &quot;algorithm&quot; is actually humans, hiding behind the shield of automation.

Do you mean this post?<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;745#issuecomment-539962215" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;745#iss...</a>That&#x27;s the developer relenting and trying to resubmit, after fuming at one of their users suggesting to do so. The reply they get is the same as the original reply, including the ToS (right? Not &quot;ToC&quot;) but excluding the bit about risking being banned if the same vilation occurs multiple times. It still looks like an automated reply though.

&gt; I wonder if it&#x27;s been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they&#x27;re wrong.Further down the github issue, another person attempts to submit the same build recieving the same response. But then asks for clarification on the applicability to uBlock only to receive an excerpt from ToC bundling advice...Pretty sure this is not algorithmic. As the dev said they are being stone walled.

This sort of evil behavior doesn&#x27;t require intent or actual malice to form.All it requires is that panic efforts to fix things be primarily allocated to problems that hurt google and not primarily allocated to things that hurt google&#x27;s opponents. Or for infrastructure that has a history of hurting google to get disabled while infrastructure that has a history of hurting others gets ignored in favor of spending more time on new projects or fixing things that hurt google.IMO characterizing it as involving malice (&#x27;pretend&#x27;) actually _understates_ the problem. Google&#x27;s actions are sometimes explicitly malicious, but they&#x27;re even more often malicious OR indifferent, as that is a strict superset. If one day they decided to stop being actively evil this problem would not go away.Maybe it could be reduced with the right kind of attitude towards introspecting and seeking out systemic causes of evil consequences even at their own expense. I heard there was once a company with a &quot;don&#x27;t be evil&quot; mantra, but they abandoned it as they grew.This also explains why the same evil conduct sometimes shows up in cases where no one can figure out any way that google actually benefits. It&#x27;s a lot easier to cause harm through indifference than greed because greed requires that you have a way to benefit. Most conceivable harmful acts don&#x27;t have much of a benefit for anyone.

Hopefully in this case, they will switch to Firefox.

I think the community should start putting together a &quot;how to migrate to Brave&quot; doc.I&#x27;m curious.. Does Brave have their extensions managed by Google?

Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;johnath&#x2F;status&#x2F;1116871231792455686" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;johnath&#x2F;status&#x2F;1116871231792455686</a>It goes like this: Google bans or disables something, then they pretend they made a mistake, but still delay fixing it for days or weeks while giving amateurish explanations for these delays. In the end what this tactic achieves, is hampering a software Google disapproves (or competes against). The tired users switches to a different software (made by google?) or stop using the software altogether. The same tactic targets competing developers.

This approach to algorithmic services is an ideology.

On purpose.When I search for &quot;firebase vs ...&quot; I don&#x27;t get parse server, I get nonsensical rubbish that folks won&#x27;t compare with firebase. like mongodb, heroku, google analytics, amplify. But if I search for &quot;parse server v&quot;. the first suggestion is firebase. Google is pure evil, you just have to open your eyes to see all their dirty tricks.

With google I always assume malice unless they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was truly unintentional.

I wonder if it&#x27;s been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they&#x27;re wrong.Honestly, Google&#x27;s (and general tech giants&#x27;) willingness to let people&#x27;s lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push.More and more, we&#x27;re seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised, people being shadowbanned from dating apps that represent a majority of your chances to find a significant other, and so on.I think we need legislation to deal with these issues: people subjected to punishment should be able to know the rules they&#x27;re being subjected to, the way they supposedly broke those laws, and have a non automated chance to contest the ruling. Even if these businesses aren&#x27;t public property, when they represent an almost monopolistic chance to get the service they provided they should be treated as if they are.

They&#x27;re openly planning the end of UBlock Origin with their upcoming add-on change (Manifest v3). Start moving now.

May I offer a suggestion? A third party password manager grants the freedom to switch browsers at will on mobile and desktop. It&#x27;s a nice feeling.Of course bookmarks and extensions are another important factor but it&#x27;s nice to be liberated from at least one part of the chain.

I really hope this is Chrome shooting their selves in the foot. Like a fool I am using Chrome as I type this, my excuse is Chrome has my banking numbers saved and haven&#x27;t taken the 2 seconds to enter it into firefox so it is ready and convenient. But if I can&#x27;t use an adblocker and if I don&#x27;t have control over what runs on my hardware then kiss me goodbye. I will finish the switch today and uninstall Chrome.

&gt; I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say &quot;Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven&#x27;t rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let&#x27;s get a human review.The extension in question only has 9,000 users.

I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say &quot;Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven&#x27;t rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let&#x27;s get a human review.Certainly google employees and the chrome team will be aware of this within an hour if they aren&#x27;t already. You can bet it&#x27;s intentional if we don&#x27;t see a reversal in the next 3 days.&quot;

Even then the previous rc0 release got approved , this was a minor patch on top of that

That is strange, how does Google programmatically decide if a extension is multi-purpose? By looking into browser calls?

&gt;&gt; Your item did not comply with the following section of our policy: An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users.Any speculation on what the supposed multiple purposes would be?From past experience, is that type of thing something that is automatically flagged &#x2F; determined programmatically or does a human reviewer of an extension make the call?

Unfortunately it has created an Internet Explorer effect, and weekly there is a site I need to load into Chromium because they never tested their JS on FF. Hopefully FF picks up user share and that begins to change again.

Chrome has always been best as a Google client. You can browse Maps in it, use Google Apps, they always work well.For regular browsing it had some nice security features but always lacked an equivalent to Tree Style Tabs. And will soon become useless without a decent ad blocker.

Not the OP, but password management and syncing in Firefox is a bit clunky.I use and love the send to device feature and password syncing (I use FF as my main drive for desktop and mobile), but they are quite slow compared to Chrome. I get it that Chrome is syncing aggressively, which would have been nice in Firefox too, even if it eats up my mobile data.Chrome web view is also the default web view in Android.

Google hangouts video uses about 50% of CPU. For many people hangouts is part of everyday work life.

I, since day one, always felt chromium UI was slicker than any other web browser out there. Slighty less lag, slightly simpler overall. Something that I love about software in general.

Having switched to Firefox three months ago, the three things that I miss most are,1. The integration with Google Translate, which I understand would be difficult for Firefox to replicate2. The ability to right-click on an image to search by image, which is probably similarly difficult to add to Firefox. [Edit: Thanks, vatueil, I will give that a try.]3. How Chrome is less picky about what text it identifies as a url. E.g. If you highlight wpc.ncep.noaa.gov&#x2F;qpf&#x2F;day1-2.shtml in Chrome and right-click, you can navigate to that address, but Firefox doesn&#x27;t realize that it is a url.However, I only miss these conveniences a couple times a month, so I can live without them.

Even simple stuff like finding text on a page... I use the highlighting of occurrences in the scrollbar WAY more than I ever realized.The breaking point for me to go back to Chrome a few months back was Mapbox was chewing up SO MUCH MORE resources in FF. As someone who does a lot of GIS dev in Mapbox that was a no-go =&#x2F;

I personally use Session Buddy on Chromium to keep tabs (no pun intended) on what windows are open and what tabs are inside. I save and restore my sessions using this extension as well. I haven&#x27;t found any suitable replacement extension for Firefox that works like this.

FYI, you can report non-working sites to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcompat.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcompat.com</a>

I&#x27;ve switched to Firefox but I have to keep a chrome engine browser (Brave) because some websites just refuse to work.

Few monthes ago I forced myself to fully drop Chromium. Painful. But I don&#x27;t have chrome on any laptops (only my smartphone). I don&#x27;t regret it.Google is stringing bad news after bad news.

I switched to FF after Prism was publicized. It&#x27;s good. Go for it.

Seems like wishful thinking given that there&#x27;s been no significant anti-trust action taken by the U.S. government in years.

&gt; I don&#x27;t understand the Google hate, I don&#x27;t know where it comes from.Surveillance, advertising, bloat, ever worsening UX of their software, random product shutdowns, random bans &amp; lack of human support to resolve false positives. I could go on.What people like is software that lets them accomplish what they need unobtrusively. People like Apple&#x27;s store to the extent it doesn&#x27;t let garbage and adware in. But people also dislike Apple for not allowing sideloading.Perfectly consistent position to have, IMO.

I like Google search as well, and I&#x27;ll look at a bunch of ads on it if I have to, but I don&#x27;t see the logical connection here how that implies we need to tolerate bad standards in web browsers or the android platform. Spin-off ads and search from android and chrome and search will be just as great and we don&#x27;t need to infest web standards with rules that only exist to serve the ad business.I don&#x27;t practise any double standard here either. Same goes for apple. If they use their app store to stop competition by for example Spotify to promote apple music, break that up as well. The same thing for amazon, if they use AWS money to price dump on eCommerce or disadvantage third-party sellers, break it up.I don&#x27;t have any favourites here, whenever one of these companies engages in activity that is clearly bad for the ecosystem just for their own benefit I would like to see a very rapid and proactive response.

Both Google and Apple should be broken up. All the other FAANG companies too, they&#x27;re all too big.

I don&#x27;t understand.Out of every company in tech, Google has made my life fantastic.I don&#x27;t understand the Google hate, I don&#x27;t know where it comes from. People don&#x27;t like getting relevant advertising, but they do like when Apple closes off their App store &#x27;for safety&#x27;.I don&#x27;t know why the double standard. I personally think this is a massive advertising campaign from one of the FAANG companies and we are the tools that discuss it.

I&#x27;m curious about something. I tend to be quite skeptical, so what is your view on corruption? For instance if I pay you $10 will you say the opposite thing and start supporting an even greater integration of these businesses and perhaps even bringing more Google entities into government funded institutions? Probably not. $100? $1,000? $1,000,000? You&#x27;re going to change your tune quite rapidly. I think that everybody, for the most part, has a price. And it&#x27;s generally quite low.Last year Google&#x27;s net income was $30,740,000,000. Put another way, 30,740 millions. Obvious of course but all these zeroes often let us lose intuition of just how stupidly much money this is. There are a total of 535 voting members in the US congress. And of course to ensure a company is safe it needn&#x27;t get all 535 members, just a handful of key players sprinkled about would be more than enough. I&#x27;m also certainly not suggesting this is some shady cloak and dagger nonsense as I initially proposed to you; instead, simply a result of completely legal lobbying. I come to you with a presumably poignant pretty pleasant palatable power-point presentation - the undertone of our exchange needs not even be spoken. I, as a mega corporation, am simply looking for politicians that are &#x27;doing the right thing.&#x27; You could get a transcript of our conversation and it&#x27;d be perfectly kosher. Leave office and, even though we already regularly chat, if you&#x27;ve been a good boy you stand to get paid $400,000 for 30 minute chats, over and over. Got a loser son? You know I think he just has a lot of untapped potential. We&#x27;re always looking for executive advisors that can offer unique perspectives - pay&#x27;s about half a million per year.I find it difficult to find any other explanation for the state of business today. The behaviors of companies today are vastly more anticompetitive than those of companies in times past, an increasingly distant past, when the government actually did anything. The difference seems to be that modern companies have just become vastly larger, and they&#x27;re increasingly interweaving with government. I wonder if this is analogous to how people felt in the days before the separation of church and state.

time to bring out the anti-trust hammer and separate chrome and other google entities from the search and ad business. It really seems like they&#x27;re asking for it.

This is the lamest excuse to block UBO. Do you need more reasons to ditch Chrome?

Pi-hole is a basically a glorified DNS filter. While it&#x27;s great for blocking DNS names across all devices on your network, it is not a replacement for browser plugins like uBlock Origin.

You make good points but it sounds very silly to claim DNS adblocking is a waste of resources. One, to each his own. Two, no false positives in our home and 10%-15% of DNS queries blocked is definitely not the &quot;wrong solution&quot; for me and many, many others. Why trivialize legitimate use cases to make your point.Furthermore, you can&#x27;t install ublock origin on IoT devices and smart TV&#x27;s so your claim of &quot;waste of resources&quot; is even more questionable.Better still, why not both pihole and ublock origin?

Yes, but ublock doesn&#x27;t write software that can be deployed to every device on your home network

Pi Hole is a very poor substitute for uBlock origin, it doesn&#x27;t block Youtube or Twitch ads for example or do anything dynamic. Plus it&#x27;s full of false positives since DNS rules can be very coarse or change continuously. Not to mention the trouble you have to go to when sites break due to that coarseness or that in many cases it degrades functionality that&#x27;s not immediately obvious.uBlock origin is the king of adblocking, and suffers from none of these issues. Use anything else and you&#x27;re severely compromising. I&#x27;d go as far as to say that DNS adblocking is basically a waste of resources, a gimmick, the wrong solution to a well-defined problem.

It’s better than nothing and also works on mobile devices with poor ad-blocking support, like the iPad and iPhone.

The Pi-Hole is literally DNS filtering - aka HOSTs file in hardware.Relying upon a security practice from almost 25 years ago is not really a good idea IMHO.

Edge on Chromium is a great browser! Been using it for three months now and am never going back.Also, while I am here, you should all be using a Pi Hole instead of uBlock Origin anyway. Much less detectable by sites, covers all of your devices...Seriously, spend the 1 hour it takes to set up the Pi Hole - you won’t regret it.

I use FireFox as my primary browser, but I&#x27;m also a big fan of Brave.

Note that extensions installed this way will be disabled whenever the browser is restarted. (In chrome, not in Brave based on my experience)

chrome:&#x2F;&#x2F;extensions
Enter Developer Mode and Load from folder
(also valid on Kiwi Browser for Android and Yandex Browser)

What are the options for manual installation?

Same. Plus, even with Brave, you&#x27;d still need to install the latest uBO from github, so there&#x27;s no benefit aside from &quot;I hate Google but I&#x27;ll still use a fork of their open source browser&quot;

Whenever Google pushes out the manifest v3 changes, ad blocking on Chrome will be hobbled. uBlock Origin already stated they are dead on Chrome whenever that happens.

Is that because of the opt-in BAT crypto bullshit, or because Eich is the boogieman?

Firefox has recently started blocking Google’s third-party cookies by default.

Why would Firefox block Google ads or Google trackers by default ?
It doesn&#x27;t make sense, it&#x27;s their almost only source of revenue (&gt;500 million of USD).

&gt; It&#x27;d be great if Firefox bundles a content blocker like uBlock Origin in its distributionsNo thanks. Firefox is a great web browser platform. Instead, it should focus on improving web extension apis, allowing users to build their own extensions upon it.

&quot;BAT shenanigans&quot;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;batgrowth.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;batgrowth.com&#x2F;</a> -- this is already bigger than alternative micropayment-like schemes. It&#x27;s opt in and will remain so for our default builds. If you don&#x27;t like it, don&#x27;t use it.

If you have to use Chromium, at this point it is clear that Brave is a better Chromium than Chrome [0][1] despite its BAT shenanigans. The UX is super nice, and adblocking just works without having to install any extensions. Hopefully Brave doesn&#x27;t buy into the whole PrivacySandbox thing Google proposed [2].For everything else, Firefox should be the default [3][4].It&#x27;d be great if Firefox bundles a content blocker like uBlockOrigin [5] in its distributions and introduces First-Party Isolation [6]. DoH is a welcome addition, esp since it can be used with AdGuard DNS [7] for another layer of content blocking. Firefox Private Network [8] is yet another step in the right direction, as are the anti-fingerprinting techniques [9] it has been upstreaming from the Tor Browser. With WASM around the corner, it&#x27;d be wonderful when native apps could be run from within a privacy-friendly sandbox like Firefox. Imagine using WhatsApp&#x2F;Instagram on Android within Firefox with content blockers...Next up: Strike partnerships with Android OEMs and bundle the browser as default.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18052923" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18052923</a>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=19263649" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=19263649</a>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20767891" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20767891</a>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20052623" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20052623</a>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17361168" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17361168</a>[5] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20874006" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20874006</a>[6] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20783339" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20783339</a>[7] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18788410" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18788410</a>[8] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20927832" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20927832</a>[9] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20054831" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20054831</a>

They&#x27;d get +googol respect from me if they&#x27;d ever actually say that line. It sucks that companies can&#x27;t just communicate honestly about their intentions.

&quot;Your extension prevents billions of ads from being showed and we want that money.&quot;

The reason there&#x27;s not is that the store is filled with extensions that have enough users to deserve an actual explanation. At scale they&#x27;d just need to have a sizable review staff with actual training and policies, but they don&#x27;t want to.

There should be a threshold of &quot;number of active extension users&quot; where Google has a human provide an actual explanation when rejecting an update.

You get a bunch of nagging when you sideload.

You can still side load <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adnauseam.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adnauseam.io&#x2F;</a>

They expect to be no longer able to update it.&quot;Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store -- there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0.&quot;, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;745#issuecomment-539962215" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;uBlockOrigin&#x2F;uBlock-issues&#x2F;issues&#x2F;745#iss...</a>

This is a development version that was blocked, the main extension was not blocked.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mems&#x2F;bookmarklets-context-menu" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mems&#x2F;bookmarklets-context-menu</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;bookmarklets-context-menu&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;bookmarklets-contex...</a>

My issue with FF is that it doesn&#x27;t batch load the favicons after importing bookmarks from Chrome. The globe icon is fugly. The items in bookmarks are too closely spaced and look bad. It just looks like amateur hour.

At the moment I only have one issue with FF. I can&#x27;t use bookmarklets on pages like FB and Twitter, because of some wrong implementation of a content policiy or something like that...

I&#x27;ve been using it for a few years and it has been rock solid for me.

Right now, nightly contains updates that are specific to energy usage on MacOS (in a good way).

I have been using it for a few &quot;years&quot; now. It has exceeded my expectation for stability from a &quot;nightly&quot; product. I don&#x27;t even remember having problems with it in last few years, and it&#x27;s my primary browser.

Why Nightly? It&#x27;s not guaranteed to be rock solid.

Try Stash,I think it&#x27;s more helpful than onetab.
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;stash&#x2F;cacanmllkminddbhckmepccebmhnglnj" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;stash&#x2F;cacanmllkmin...</a>
It&#x27;s a chrome extension but you can install it by Chrome Store Foxified.

Same experience here. Browsing with Firefox increases my CPU temperature by 10 degrees.

FF has never been rock solid for me. Massive CPU usage. Causes my fans to turn on on any MacBook I’ve ever had.

I&#x27;m currently using FF 70 beta on the Aurora update channel on Linux and so I&#x27;ve had no complaints. Performance has been on par with Chrome&#x2F;Chromium and a huge leap over the FF 6x releases, especially on Linux.

Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser.Rock solid.Can recommend few extensions- <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;auto-tab-discard&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;auto-tab-disc...</a>- <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.one-tab.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.one-tab.com</a>- <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-GB&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;multi-touch-zoom&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-GB&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;multi-touch-z...</a>

It&#x27;s about time Mozilla to release FF with nightly macOS optimizations and I&#x27;m ready to switch on all platforms I use.I moved from Safari back to Chrome week ago, because Apple basically did same thing - killed uBlock in Safari 13. I was expecting to move to FF soon or later, but didn&#x27;t expect it will be in less than a month. :)

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store