▲ 29 ▼ Waterfox will include Brave’s adblock engine, & allow search ads on by default for revenue (cyberinsider.com) submitted 5 months ago by TheTwelveYearOld@lemmy.world to c/firefox@lemmy.world 23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] yessikg@fedia.io 20 points 5 months ago (8 children) Yikes, I'm going to have to move to a different Firefox fork permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Yeah, I'd stay away from anything Brave if possible. It may be open source, but it's run by a bigot who funds political causes that strip people of their rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Still sticking to that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Seems to be a hidden opt-in option at this time. Mozilla is not a role model for great behavior anyway, given their defending of Google in court driven by their partnership deal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Are you still planning on switching away from a browser that was just going to implement built-in Firefox functionality responsibly and openly? And if so, what are you going to switch to? I would be surprised if any fork developer promised to remove a free, positive feature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 point 5 months ago For a browser that includes it opt-in, there's no supporting of Brave if it's kept disabled. Then if there's no wide adoption, Mozilla may remove the code altogether. Alternatively, it may choose not to pull commits from the original repo, making it completely independent from the project run by a bigot. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent [–] XLE@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Why? If you're concerned about anything that has even a snippet of code from an unethical company, you can't use any Firefox derivative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yessikg@fedia.io 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It's more about the fact that I already have an adblocker and I specifically have it turned off in a few websites to support those websites, not the browser I'm using to open those websites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago I don't see any reason to assume the ad blocker built into Waterfox won't allow you to do the exact same thing... Or you can just disable it entirely, because it doesn't actually have an incentive to make you use it. Not sure why that would cause you to run away from Waterfox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago (4 children) Yeah, I'd stay away from anything Brave if possible. It may be open source, but it's run by a bigot who funds political causes that strip people of their rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Still sticking to that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Seems to be a hidden opt-in option at this time. Mozilla is not a role model for great behavior anyway, given their defending of Google in court driven by their partnership deal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Are you still planning on switching away from a browser that was just going to implement built-in Firefox functionality responsibly and openly? And if so, what are you going to switch to? I would be surprised if any fork developer promised to remove a free, positive feature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 point 5 months ago For a browser that includes it opt-in, there's no supporting of Brave if it's kept disabled. Then if there's no wide adoption, Mozilla may remove the code altogether. Alternatively, it may choose not to pull commits from the original repo, making it completely independent from the project run by a bigot. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Still sticking to that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Seems to be a hidden opt-in option at this time. Mozilla is not a role model for great behavior anyway, given their defending of Google in court driven by their partnership deal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Are you still planning on switching away from a browser that was just going to implement built-in Firefox functionality responsibly and openly? And if so, what are you going to switch to? I would be surprised if any fork developer promised to remove a free, positive feature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 point 5 months ago For a browser that includes it opt-in, there's no supporting of Brave if it's kept disabled. Then if there's no wide adoption, Mozilla may remove the code altogether. Alternatively, it may choose not to pull commits from the original repo, making it completely independent from the project run by a bigot. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Seems to be a hidden opt-in option at this time. Mozilla is not a role model for great behavior anyway, given their defending of Google in court driven by their partnership deal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Are you still planning on switching away from a browser that was just going to implement built-in Firefox functionality responsibly and openly? And if so, what are you going to switch to? I would be surprised if any fork developer promised to remove a free, positive feature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 point 5 months ago For a browser that includes it opt-in, there's no supporting of Brave if it's kept disabled. Then if there's no wide adoption, Mozilla may remove the code altogether. Alternatively, it may choose not to pull commits from the original repo, making it completely independent from the project run by a bigot. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Are you still planning on switching away from a browser that was just going to implement built-in Firefox functionality responsibly and openly? And if so, what are you going to switch to? I would be surprised if any fork developer promised to remove a free, positive feature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 point 5 months ago For a browser that includes it opt-in, there's no supporting of Brave if it's kept disabled. Then if there's no wide adoption, Mozilla may remove the code altogether. Alternatively, it may choose not to pull commits from the original repo, making it completely independent from the project run by a bigot. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 point 5 months ago For a browser that includes it opt-in, there's no supporting of Brave if it's kept disabled. Then if there's no wide adoption, Mozilla may remove the code altogether. Alternatively, it may choose not to pull commits from the original repo, making it completely independent from the project run by a bigot. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] XLE@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Why? If you're concerned about anything that has even a snippet of code from an unethical company, you can't use any Firefox derivative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yessikg@fedia.io 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It's more about the fact that I already have an adblocker and I specifically have it turned off in a few websites to support those websites, not the browser I'm using to open those websites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago I don't see any reason to assume the ad blocker built into Waterfox won't allow you to do the exact same thing... Or you can just disable it entirely, because it doesn't actually have an incentive to make you use it. Not sure why that would cause you to run away from Waterfox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yessikg@fedia.io 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It's more about the fact that I already have an adblocker and I specifically have it turned off in a few websites to support those websites, not the browser I'm using to open those websites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] XLE@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago I don't see any reason to assume the ad blocker built into Waterfox won't allow you to do the exact same thing... Or you can just disable it entirely, because it doesn't actually have an incentive to make you use it. Not sure why that would cause you to run away from Waterfox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] XLE@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago I don't see any reason to assume the ad blocker built into Waterfox won't allow you to do the exact same thing... Or you can just disable it entirely, because it doesn't actually have an incentive to make you use it. Not sure why that would cause you to run away from Waterfox permalink fedilink source parent