this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
2076 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

58135 readers
4194 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

• Firefox offers better privacy and security than Chrome, with upcoming support for 200 new add-ons. • While Chrome dominates, Firefox gains ground with user-friendly browsing experience and open-source model. • Mozilla's focus on user privacy and transparency challenges Google's ad-centric approach, making Firefox a viable alternative.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Uplink@programming.dev 22 points 10 months ago (6 children)

How is this going to end?

Google blocks access to it's services for Firefox altogether? Maybe even ban it from the Play Store? That would finally give me a real incentive to install some CFW.

[–] lipilee@feddit.nl 9 points 10 months ago

No, they will simply stop funding mozilla.

[–] helmet91@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I know this isn't a popular view, but as for me, if Google makes the user experience worse (or blocks services entirely) for Firefox, I'll just stop using those services. I'll find alternatives for the essentials, and those that aren't essential... well, hello, extra free time.

It was a thing of the past, when different browsers rendered websites differently, thus some services didn't work in certain browsers.

Nowadays all browsers are pretty advanced, they render websites more or less precisely according to standards, so it's really not hard to make a website work in all major browsers. So if a service doesn't work in the browser of my choice (whether it's intentional or not), then that service sucks and isn't worth my time messing with it.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 6 points 10 months ago

Well yes but then it would be really really hard to not have an antitrust charge bought (we know that various governments have been trying to not pursue any antitrust so far)

[–] sammeeeeeee@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would say that's most likely ileagal

[–] Dublin112@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In the US, without net neutrality I believe it's completely legal. I remember seeing a report on The Steven Colbert show about a year or so after we lost net neutrality about how Comcast deemed Netflix wasn't paying them enough money so they throttled Netflix into the ground. This gave the appearance that Netflix services were crap in comparison to their own services like Hulu. About a month later they came to an agreement and Netflix paid up then magically speeds were restored to about the same as Hulu services.

One of many articles from the time.

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago

I can practically hear the EU Commission stoking the furnace as we speak...

[–] vimdiesel@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

that's fine, we'll find a way. I mean they could start some kind of clumsy certification thing, but I'll just move on and open up brave when I absolutely have to, otherwise they get no attention from me. I bet ublock traffic is less than a half a percent of their traffic.