If you run uBlock Origin, use the Firefox version as it offers better protection
The latest version of the popular content blocker uBlock Origin comes with a new protective feature that is exclusive to the Firefox web browser.
The latest version of uBlock Origin for Firefox, version 1.25 or higher, will "CNAME-unlock network requests". Some sites may use a relatively new tracking technique that uses canonical names (CNAMEs) to bypass content filters and ad-blockers.
Basically, what the sites do is disguise an ad-tracking or serving domain by using a first-party domain, e.g. this.example.com. Content blockers have a hard time identifying these redirects, and most use a manual list of known domains. The problem with the manual approach is that it is very easy for sites to change the redirects or even use automated means to switch subdomains.
The latest uBlock Origin version for Firefox looks up non-blocked resources to uncover first-party tracking and block these attempts. The resources are highlighted in blue in the uBlock Origin interface when all connections of the active site are displayed. The uncloaked sites are displayed in a smaller font size underneath the canonical names; these may be used to determine whether a resource should be blocked or allowed. Sites may use CNAME redirects for content delivery purposes.
The resources may be handled just like any other connection using the extension; you may allow some in case they are needed or keep blocking them.
Mozilla's Firefox web browser is the only browser with the required DNS API functionality to make these look-ups. Google Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers don't support this and uBlock Origin cannot look up the requests therefore in those browsers.
Firefox users who have uBlock Origin installed should receive the new version of the extension automatically if automatic extension updates is enabled in the browser. The extension may display a prompt to accept a new permission -- Access IP address and hostname information -- during the update process as it is required for the new functionality.
Additional information about the new feature is available on the project's official GitHub page.
Closing Words
The Firefox version of uBlock Origin is the only version that supports CNAME-uncloaking and thus an effective option to block first-party tracking attempts automatically and not based on manual lists. For now, the Firefox version of uBlock Origin is superior to all other versions of the extension. Whether that is enough for users to switch to Firefox remains to be seen.
Now You: What is your take on that?
Hi.
With Opera Browser Task-Manager (Shift+Esc) and uBO protocol i can see suspicious URL calls under category “Subframe:” like videout.ru, leopony.com. These were not blocked by uBO so i did it.
These Sites were called not be me but perhaps by opened tabs OR by Addons.
I want to detect WHICH source does which network requests and control them: Tab, Addon, not only opened URLs.
Is there a protocol option in Opera, Addons, to see and search for all called URLs and Suffixes?
With uBlock Origin’s Network requests protocol one can block nearly everything, but also Addon requests?
In uBO i can not see from which source (Addon, Tab,) it comes.
Are there Addons to do this?
thx
Have always LOVED uBlockOrigin, but lately having a serious problem with it – I comment at the Gateway Pundit website and out of the blue at GP Disquis suddenly will not open in Chrome, Firefox or Waterfox unless uBlockOrigin is disabled. Finally today found a solution: uninstall uBlockOrigin and install uBlock instead. Will try uBlockOrigin again before long. Thank you.
Staying with ublock_origin-1.24.4 and not updating. i don’t like the changes in the latest version.
Which changes exactly? You can configure/disable some of them.
People are applauding Firefox for what something else, uBlock Origin, does ; the blocker that they refused to bundle or at least inspire themselves from in spite of even some Mozilla engineers suggesting it because Mozilla’s management wanted instead the useless colander that is the Firefox default content blocker, because they think that we are not nice enough with advertisers, and MozCorp is a for-profit with Google is their main revenue source. That’s the fuller story in case anyone was interested.
https://i.imgur.com/mIHbeZH.png
I prefer using Nano Adblocker – a forked version of uBlock Origin that has even greater blocking capabilities and a smaller memory footprint compared to uBlock Origin.
I don’t know what the creator does, but he takes the latest version of uBlock Origin and improves it even more. It’s available on both the Chrome and Firefox store and in both places it has great review score so you know people are satisfied with it.
Just running Nano Adblocker and Nano Defender, it blocks absolutely everything – even rogue pop-ups on some nasty websites.
Another round of “my browser is bigger than yours” …
@Niko
Even worse, much of this fighting is rooted in rather hidden left vs right political biases, because some company allegedly dumped on their hero or whatever.
@dilldoe
Not sure what you are talking about. My argument (and that of most others here, as far as I can tell) against Mozilla is that they are claiming to protect privacy while doing the opposite. In how far this basic argument is political is beyond me.
As for Mozilla firing Eich (no need to be so cryptic about it), this is not a good reason to use Brave at all. Who uses Brave because of Brendan Eich? What would be the benefit? Get real. That’s like saying you use Firefox because of Mitchell Baker, plain ridiculous. That being said, I think it’s not OK to fire somebody for an opinion they hold privately, and snooping said private opinion out like it happens so many times in totalitarian states, even though I do not agree with Brendan Eich’s stance on homosexuals at all. Just saying that he is entitled to his opinion the way you and I and anyone else is, and that I respect freedom of speech even if I disagree (seems to become increasingly rare these days).
Can ublock origin be used with adblock plus at the same time?
Why would you want to use AdBlock Plus anyways? For many years it has been an inferior ad-blocker extension. It was sold to a company that deals with serving advertisements and by default it allows “Acceptable ads”, you have to manually add filters and even then, the extension is inferior to uBlock Origin and Nano Adblocker.
But yes, you can use the, although if you have uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus becomes completely redundant. It will only cause your browser to use even more memory and it won’t block more efficiently.
@Dumbledalf
+1
AdBlock Plus isn’t trustworthy and adds nothing to your protection if you already have uBlock Origin installed.
@Iron Heart
To not be trustworthy, AdBlock Plus must have lied. So what did they lie about?
And if they didn’t lie, then please don’t bother trying to spin this with word salad blather, as that makes me want to puke.
@keeplTreal
Not sure what you are on about, buddy. They advertise themselves as an adblocker, but this adblocker comes with an extensive whitelist by default, and this whitelist is enabled by default. This is not what people would expect the adblocker to do. It doesn’t really block all ads to the best of its ability. There whitelist also isn’t transparent, and they did in fact outright lie to their community about certain entries on their whitelist, claiming that the community wanted these to be whitelisted, while in fact they took money for it.
> And if they didn’t lie, then please don’t bother trying to spin this with word salad blather, as that makes me want to puke.
Sheesh, no need for this kind of passive aggressive behavior here. Do you even use ABP, or do you use uBlock origin like everyone else in the know?
@ok ublock and ublock origin are 2 different things.. .don’t install the wrong one.
—
back on topic.. re: the headline… it’s not like you can run the version from a different browser in a particular browser… if you see what i’m getting at..
@adw: good to point it out. I also mentioned it in a comment above to Martin.
Will uMatrix also be getting updated with this “CNAME”?
Well, Google controls web standards and Mozilla. Therefore, once browser extensions are turned into a web standard, Firefox will lose all of its exclusive WebExtensions APIs, including webRequest: https://browserext.github.io/browserext/
After that happens, all Firefox fanboys will cease to use uBlockOrigin, because Firefox forks are “iNSeCuRe!”.
First, the Cname thing is active only in the advanced-user mode. And secondly, if you activate it Ghacks.net turns immediately into a ruin (!) because of Marfeel.map.fastly.net, Ghacks.net’s first party tracker! That was a bloody good one, Martin. Bingo!
@Martin Brinkmann: I think the title of the article is misleading as it suggests that the Firefox version of uBO can be used on other browsers too, which is not possible of course.
That’s good. Unfortunately, if disabled on most websites it makes the website unreadable (e.g. no images, breaks website,…).
I wonder if Chromium-based browsers with built-in ad blockers (Brave & Opera) will add this feature?
I use Opera and I can tell you the built-in ad blocker is inefficient in blocking everything. Since I can’t remove it, I just keep it disabled and use Nano Adblocker + Nano Defender instead.
I’ve also tried using Brave as my main browser and the built-in ad blocker is also insufficient, but the situation there is even worse as you can’t even disable the ad blocker completely – only individually on some websites, which becomes a pain since if you visit a website and something doesn’t work on it, you have to waste time trying to figure out what’s preventing it from working properly.
So don’t count on them ever adding this
@Dumbledalf
On websites which are broken with Brave Shields for some reason, you can disable them and rely on uBlock Origin. If the website does work with Brave Shields, then there is no reason to disable them.
If you experience lots of breakage on websites, I recommend that you disable script blocking (“Block scripts”) in Brave’s settings, the most common reason for breakage:
https://i.imgur.com/daKPgf7.png
The real and good info is always in the comments. For example the Geoffrey block list i didn’t knew that existent i am gonna check it now and see if i need it for my block list.
You can also add Frogeye’s list to Pi-hole while we wait for v5 that I believe will have the CNAME checking built-in.
The only chrome browser that I’ve read will be doing anything about this is Brave. They have talked about it and it will be added to their shields at some point as it’s not an extension so they can do whatever they need. In theory Opera could do the same but I’m not sure if their ad blocker is in base code or a hidden extension.
nothing about the last update where ublock wants to know url and hostname
Changes:
uBO requires a new permission, dns, which is required to solve issue 780. This may triggers a new permission warning from Firefox when uBO updates to the latest dev build, specifically “Access IP address and hostname information”, even though this was already possible for uBO to access that information.
Hard to read?
Firefox and uBlock Origin, the best pair for the best browser experience, I’ve always believed so and the fact Firefox is the only browser to support uBO’s new protective feature confirms this.
The fact this new uBO protective feature, that to uncover first-party tracking and block these attempts, is made available by dear Gorhill, talented and honest developer, is relevant of the new Web scheme : up to now we had the bad guys spreading security related infections and the good guys offering protection at the cost of users’ privacy (mafia scenario). Now we have a third actor, sites themselves, some of them, which use the CNAME feature to include tracking (at least) scum. uBlock Origin 1.2.5, provided the browser is Firefox, handles tricky sites as well. Good.
Except that Firefox has been running itself into the ground since around 2010-2011 when they released version 4.0. Not to mention their publicity stunts backfiring on them, like firing Brendan Eich, because he isn’t an SJW feminist, which is exactly the sorry crowd that’s at the helm of Mozilla and Firefox. Just look at their browser logo, it’s like the colors of the LGBQTSLSJSxD flag.
They have been spending more time updating the browser’s appearance to coincide with their ideals than making it work better.
Not to mention how more and more web developers refuse to make their websites compatible with Firefox and for good reason – it’s market share is down to 4% worldwide. It’s only a matter of time when it falls below 0.5% percent and everyone stops caring about it.
Sure Google are trying to govern what happens with their Chromium browser, but all the Chromium forks can fight back if they wanted to. And sadly, but truly, the future of the browsing is the Blink rendering engine. Gecko is just an antique that can’t die out any faster.
@Martin, I was already censored once today, 1 post I made today disappeared thanks to the site censor.
I hope this post is NOT discarded by the censor & never allowed to post in the comment section.
Firefox is based.
gorhill is based.
uBlock Origin is based.
uMatrix is based.
I can’t wait until Manifest v. 3 is enforced by Google, so all the Chromium tards can watch all the ads that uBlock Origin will block for me in Firefox (spoiler, when Manifest v. 3 enforcement drops, gorhill will stop development of uBlock Origin, & the existing version of uBlock Origin will stop working in Chromium based browsers [Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.]).
BTW, using DNS to block ads (Pi-hole) is vastly inferior to uBlock Origin & should be relegated to devices to ban ad blocking, because it sucks.
I wonder if this entire comment will be deleted. Then Reddit will continue to mock the comment section on ghacks.
I guess I’ll find out in about 12 hours (the “delay” between when I post my comment to when it “sometimes” is published in the comments section).
@notanonFUD
> Firefox is based.
Nope. Firefox is spyware just as much as Chrome is. Nice shilling attempt, though.
> gorhill is based. uBlock Origin is based. uMatrix is based.
That is true.
> I can’t wait until Manifest v. 3 is enforced by Google, so all the Chromium tards can watch all the ads that uBlock Origin will block for me in Firefox (spoiler, when Manifest v. 3 enforcement drops, gorhill will stop development of uBlock Origin, & the existing version of uBlock Origin will stop working in Chromium based browsers [Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.]).
Ah, your usual propaganda. I just copy and paste my previous reply because writing the same text again is not warranted here:
“Wow, you are still continuing to spread your FUD? Here we go again, time to debunk it once more: Some Chromium-based browsers, notably Brave and Opera, have built-in adblockers now. Those built-in adblockers do not make use of the webRequest API, which Google intends to cripple as part of Manifest V3. It is true that browser extensions like uBlock Origin rely on it and will thus either be crippled or fade away entirely, but this is NOT true for built-in adblockers since they do NOT rely on any extension APIs.”
See here: https://twitter.com/flamsmark/status/1088170219695071232?s=09
> Then Reddit will continue to mock the comment section on ghacks.
And with “Reddit” you actually mean the fanboy temple otherwise known as r/firefox, where critical opinions are downvoted into oblivion even if they are totally matter of fact, and where the fanboys gather to scratch each other’s backs… I kind of guessed that you crawled out of this particular subreddit.
As a workaround solutions for the Chromium-based browsers we have Geoffrey Frogeye’s block list which can block these CNAME first-party trackers.
https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/#whats-a-first-party-tracker
@Yarmus That’s the blocklist I use with Adguard web extension. I don’t know if I have correclty implemented it though.
@Jarmus: thanks for that. 3 questions:
* that list gets updated on Frogeye’s site, so that means it has to be downloaded by the user and reintegrated in uBO, right?
* Should one use the Hosts file or the Raw list?
* Where in the uBO extension should it be integrated: in “My filers” or “My rules”?
My apologies for such basic, newbie-like questions.
@Klaas Vaak
1) Right
2) Hosts file format
3) “Filters lists” tab, Expand the “Custom” category ,check the “Import” and then you add the list you want.
@Covid-19: thanks for your help.
After carefully reading your and SDR’s answer I think that your reply to my 1st question re the updating is not correct.
In the Filters List, under the Custom category, I have added the URL of the web page with Frogeye’s list. In other words, I pasted https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers.txt into the uBO import box. If that is the correct way of doing it, then that means that uBO is referring to that page and will therefore always have the most up-to-date list and I won’t have to do any manual updating. The same way it is with any of the filter lists, such as EasyPrivacy, Dan Pollock’s hosts file, MVPS HOSTS, etc.
Do you agree with this?
I prefer the raw list with the domains. You can add it to uBlock in your filter list tab under the custom section, check “import” and paste the url of the list -> https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers.txt then apply the changes.
@SDR: many thanks for that.
Any idea how to deal with updates? Just go to that web pages from time-to-time and copy/paste the list?
@ Jarmus
You are right. Frogeye does a very good job blocking CNAME first-party trackers.
Long live uBlock Origin!
uBlock is becomming a single point of failure in the battle against intrusive ads and tracking as other defenses are being eroded.
uBlock is a browsers best asset, but wouldnt it be amazing if it was ported outsided of the browser somehow? There would be no restrictions and any browser or web app could be filtered. It couldnt be weakened over time by features being taken out of the browser.
Extensions like uBlock Origin rely on access to DOM elements in addition to the domains/IP addresses etc. Outside of the browser, only domans and IP addresses can be used. So ad blockers will always need to be a browser extension, or at least they’ll need to access specific browser APIs.
That sort of thing has been done in the past: Privoxy (junkbuster – based) and Proxomitron work as local proxies on the loopback address.
+1 at privoxy that can change the browser agent and even js tricks won’t unhide the real one.
Many questions here ignore the fact that webextensions are way too high in the RING system.
For some really light tools, look at:
https://www.zenz-solutions.de/personalhttpproxy/
https://github.com/IngoZenz/personaldnsfilter
Putting ublock outside of browser needs it to man in the middle https connections that if you search it, it is the most dangerous thing in software.
Because gorhill needs to maintain all security checks firefox itself does for https connections and after that firefox can’t do it because system wide blocker will fool it because it encrypt connection again with its own certificate!
@ok
What you’re describing is exactly what AdGuard does (the program, not the browser extension). It works on Windows, MacOS, Linux, and Android / iOS while also being browser / app independent since it operates on the network protocol layer (like your firewall) which is below the application layer where browsers and other apps run on..
Sure it’s not free but as of right now it is the best general-purpose adblocker in existence.
Maintaining the browser extensions is already time-consuming as it is, I doubt gorhill would have the time to take uBlock down the same path as AdGuard (at least not by himself). In the end both uBlock and AdGuard are allies in the fight against the true enemy trying to taint the web as we know it.
Indeed, AdGuard is available for install as a separate app independent of the browser. I have it setup on one of my android phones and it works exceptionally well.
Also, I use AdGuard DNS on my home router so most ads are blocked for any device accessing the Internet from my router (guests, etc.).
More from its website:
“AdGuard DNS is a free, privacy-oriented DNS resolution system that blocks tracking, ads and phishing. You can use it instead of your current DNS provider. AdGuard DNS is a foolproof way to block Internet ads that does not require installing any applications. It is easy to use, absolutely free, easily set up on any device, and provides you with minimal necessary functions to block ads, counters, malicious websites, and adult content.” [It allows encryption, too.]
Default servers (it offers more restrictive servers for blocking adult content, too):
176.103.130.130
176.103.130.131
I’m not a sponsor or affiliated with the company — just a user. I also us uBlock Origin in my browsers – and it’s high quality, of course.
apart from being Russian company it does have its own flaws…
I get all the promotion blocked by DNS resolver when set on router – being it tripadvisor or something else, so have to change DNS on machine manually to get say hotel discount offered despite it was my action executing it (yep, adblock warns about commercial link but it won’t get resolved)
I tried adguard app, it makes browsing slow, so I uninstalled it By the way, you can get 6-month trial.
Yuliya?
@Yuliya, @Iron Heart, alias Abbott & Costello: of course system-wide protection can block even before uBO on a browser if the blocklists are pertinent, updated. The point here is to consider all users besides you two fellows who build their arguments around their own belly, many of those users having a basic anti-virus solution and who rely on a browser-specific protection mainly for blocking ads and tracking. The point with uBO 1.25 iis that it enables a new browser protection and that this new feature is available only on Firefox, at this time anyway. You’ll have to agree with that whatever painful it is for you two and for any similarly casualness minds.
ACHTUALLY
you can use pihole at router level, i.e. the router semnds all dns requests to a raspi running pihole.
hosts, system firewall
you can have a local proxy that filters, redirects, etc. Many examples, Adfender is a simple one that loads some of uBo blacklists but doesn’t hog your browser
…then webextensions @ RING 3
Odd how now you want to consider all users, when mozillians argue all the time how all it matters is that they can configure it for their own privacy, meanwhile screw everybody else who can’t into about:config and user js memes (soon to be deprecated, by the looks of it).
I call this double standard bullspit.
What’s a “mozillian”, a Nor Cal millionaire that plays the stock market?
That is how they call themselves. look: https://mozillians.org/en-US/
Who’s that woman with the silly haircut? !!
@Stan
That is Mitchell Baker, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. Here is her salary growth in relation to Firefox’s market share development:
https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217517703914643456?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Draw your own conclusions from this chart.
Wouldn’t MozDrone, or Pod Person be more appropriate?
I don’t know, I don’t want to insult (unlike them), so I prefer using their own terminology.
@Rockefellow
> The point here is to consider all users besides you two fellows who build their arguments around their own belly, many of those users having a basic anti-virus solution and who rely on a browser-specific protection mainly for blocking ads and tracking.
Firefox doesn’t protect you from anything by default. uBlock Origin does, but uBlock Origin isn’t part of Firefox. How many users does Firefox have, and how many users does uBlock Origin have again? Talking about “building arguments around one’s belly”, haha.
> The point with uBO 1.25 iis that it enables a new browser protection and that this new feature is available only on Firefox, at this time anyway.
It’s only available if you do install uBlock Origin, Firefox itself doesn’t protect you from anything. In how far this is an advantage for a Firefox installation without uBlock Origin (the vast majority of Firefox installations) is beyond me. Plus, there are better and more effective ways to achieve this, which are not reliant on browsers. And Brave will do something about it, as well.
> You’ll have to agree with that whatever painful it is for you two and for any similarly casualness minds.
Well, but I do agree that it is an advantage of uBlock Origin!? I am just wondering why this suddenly makes Firefox any good, most Firefox installations don’t have uBlock Origin installed. Firefox itself doesn’t protect you from anything, it allows better protection, but by itself it does nothing.
PS: As @archer has pointed out, Brave will do something about that: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/26/if-you-run-ublock-origin-use-the-firefox-version-as-it-offers-better-protection/#comment-4454907 Note that in this case, the browser itself actually protects you, this is not at all the case with Firefox. Talk about “casualness minds”, haha.
>>> Note that in this case, the browser itself actually protects you
Note that in this case, the “privacy-focused browser” blocks invasive ads and trackers to protects its own – as Browser disguised – ad-server against other competitors on the market.
Just how Brendan’s new “Privacy-by-Default Future” operates, in his own words:
— Brave CEO Brendan Eich on a Privacy-by-Default Future for Digital AdvertisingAd lovers are welcome to have a ride on his Brave new Trojan Horse
@99
> the “privacy-focused browser†blocks invasive ads and trackers
I seriously don’t see the contradiction in this sentence.
> to protects its own – as Browser disguised – ad-server against other competitors on the market.
Oh please, we have been through that already. Brave doesn’t have an “ad server” (in the sense that user data would be transmitted to a remote server). Ads are being served locally, and by default no ads show up, one has to consciously decide to us that:
https://old.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/bj0j78/how_can_brave_respect_users_privacy_while_serving/em4sakq/
No user browsing data ever reaches the company behind Brave or any middle men, but don’t let facts get in your way, buddy.
> Just how Brendan’s new “Privacy-by-Default Future†operates, in his own words:
Eich’s whole quote again makes it clear that ad matching happens locally, which is what I always say.
> Ad lovers are welcome to have a ride on his Brave new Trojan Horse
1) Brave blocks ads by default. Brave’s own ads are fully opt-in.
2) If one decides to opt into Brave ads in the first place, then ad matching and the serving of the ads happens locally, in a privacy-respecting manner.
You are desperately trying to make a privacy-respecting, local, opt-in(!) serving of ads look like something nefarious, failing miserably at it.
@Iron Heart: you said:
Can you explain what is possible, apart from switching to Brave?
@Klaas Vaak
> Can you explain what is possible, apart from switching to Brave?
Sure, you need a HOSTS file. This is a good starting point for Windows, but there are many other guides as well:
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
You then need the list provided here:
https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/#whats-a-first-party-tracker
This will block that stuff on the OS level, independent of browser choice. You can also use a Pi-Hole to achieve this, which is what I would recommend, since it protects your entire home network instead of just one machine. I am using a Pi-Hole at home, and Brave as a browser. Both are able (or will be able, in Brave’s case) to deal with that.
how to unblock a site? niki-nu guy
@Iron Heart: OK, many thanks for that :-)
My operating system blocks those connections natively, regardless of browser or installed extensions. You need this in Firefox, as that browser hijacks the native resolver.
@Yuliya
Guide please. Windows 10 or Linux. Thank you.
This is a good start, for Windows.
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
There are ways to auto update it, and to combine different lists as well, if you’re into that. I think you can find articles here on gHacks as well, I prefer to do it manually.
@Yuliya
Nice one! People who evidently know nothing were countered effectively.
Gone, reduce to atom
Viva Firefox!
@Gavin B
Firefox ha muerto:
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/01/16/mozilla-lays-off-70-employees-to-prepare-for-tough-years-ahead/
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
@Iron Heart remember FF was once called Phoenix!
@Gavin B,
I seem to recall FF being called Netscape Navigator, but I stand to correction on that score.
It once was Mozilla Suite. Navigator 9.0.0.6 32-bit can be used still today.
@Gavin B.
You seem to overlook that Firefox used to compete with Internet Explorer, which was closed source. Chromium is open source, so provided Google introduces nefarious changes, someone will fork the code base and continue on. Firefox is not needed in the current scenario. And should Mozilla abandon it, I therefore don’t see anyone picking it up.
Yes because in the past monopolies have worked out so well for everyone. We currently have rendering engine monopoly. I does not matter how many Chrome clones we have if they use the same engine. We only seemingly have a lot of choice.
I for one am glad that there is an alternative. So i would say Firefox is as relevant as ever fighting against Blink based monopoly like it was fighting against IE back in the day.
“so provided Google introduces nefarious changes”
Which is exactly what Google is doing with the official Google version of Chrome which the majority of people use. Someone should have forked Chromium already.
@Freedomfox
> Which is exactly what Google is doing with the official Google version of Chrome which the majority of people use. Someone should have forked Chromium already.
???
What do you think Opera, MS Edge, Vivaldi, Brave, Ungoogled Chromium etc. are? And yes, they do contain modified versions of Chromium. Also, as always Chrome /= Chromium. Chromium is open source software, Chrome is a proprietary offshoot of it that does come with binary blobs which Chromium by itself does not contain.
Also, user name checks out. Google funds Mozilla.
Iron Heart being a Chrome cultist like usual.
@Dude without a suite
I use Chromium, not Chrome. There is a difference, and it is not just semantic. Google Chrome is something I wouldn’t install.
But yeah, I remember you shilling Firefox here, still thinking that you are totally showing Google who is boss now by using it, while Mozilla relies on Google’s money to even exist. If that’s not paradox, then I don’t know what is.
Calling others cultists doesn’t change this fact: if Firefox dies, we would lose a company that pretends to care while doing the opposite, therefore allowing actually ethical alternatives to grow.
Google controls web standards and Mozilla, so there’s little difference if Chromium has a monopoly.