Firefox 86.0.1 will be released later today, here is what is new
Mozilla plans to release an update for its Firefox web browser later today. The new Firefox 86.0.1 will be pushed to the browser's stable channel to update Firefox 86.0 and older versions of the web browser to the latest version.
Firefox 86.0.1 is not available yet at the time of writing, but it will be released in the coming hours, provided that no stopper bugs are discovered before the release.
The new version of Firefox is a bug fix release; it does not include security updates.
Tip: you can check the installed version of Firefox by selecting Menu > Help > About Firefox, or by loading about:support. The first option runs a manual check for updates when selected, the second does not.
Firefox 86.0.1 is released for all supported desktop operating systems. It includes five fixes, two of which address issues on specific operating systems.
The first patch fixes a crash on Linux devices that happens right after the launch of the browser. The bug listing over at Mozilla@Bugzilla lists Firefox 86 as affected, but Firefox ESR 78 as unaffected.
The second patch addresses an issue that occurs only on machines with Apple Silicon. Firefox could become unresponsive after the system went to sleep.
The three remaining bugs affect all operating systems:
- One issue that could cause Firefox windows to gain or lose focus unexpectedly.
- Another fixed the truncation of date and time widgets "due to incorrected width calculation".
- The final fixed an unspecified issue "causing unexpected behavior with extensions managing tab groups".
Firefox users who are affected by at least one of the issues may want to upgrade to the new version of Firefox early. Since Firefox 86.0.1 is not a security release, it is not critical to update to the new version right away.
Most installations will be upgraded automatically today or in the coming days, unless users disabled automatic browser updates.
Now You: do you use Firefox? If so, which version currently?
As an expert in security I can safely say that firefox 89 will be far more secure than chrome and edge browser, firefox will be based on its own open source programming language called RUST, in fact because firefox now uses RUST as a programming language on its build it is less likely to encounter memory exploits that hackers could use to commit malicious acts on a victims computer.
Firefox 89 has partitioned cookies and data files so that cookies cannot read browser histroy / data and partitions them.
Firefox 89 has DOH and DOT, DNS over HTTPs which means that you will be protected from man in the middle dns poisoning.
in fact the reason more people use edge and chrome is due to computer illiterate people not knowing other options and people using google search engine which tells people to download chrome.
chrome uses C++ which is insecure in fact universities that teach programming have researched the security breaches when using C++
Nope I stay at least a year on version 85. Do not like that new UI bc like it was, was great if you now how to work with it all.
Mozilla Firefox is so private that it does more third-party connections than Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome on first run. Keep praising Firefox’s incredible privacy, there are still people who blindly believe in it.
https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/
“Facebook Hires NATO Press Officer Ben Nimmo as Intelligence Chief”
Mozilla’s friends become uglier by the day. They’re now a US army propaganda asset.
Meanwhile, Twitter is now deleting accounts for “undermining faith in NATO”. I understand why I can hardly say anything any more on the web. Fucking fascists.
Do your part, report unpatriotic internet content using the RegretsReporter extension developed by Mozilla !
I love when a Firefox post goes up. I get my popcorn, and enjoy the comments ride.
At this point the site is clearly posting these useless articles (Oh look, Firefox is going to get a minor point update with a few fixes!) simply for the comments (user engagement).
Yeah, of course, bravecomrades have dismantled google=chrome=chromium code, so now the brave-chrome-clone and other clones don’t phone home, and, the last but not least, brave-fanboys & employees have prooved it with uttermost proof; i.e. with braveironcopypastebullshit & prooven lies, and with the word of uttermost sincere and worlds best and uttermost bravewalkercoder: if the bravepuppets says something is false, then it is false … Poor souls, but hey, I do understand you bravecomrades are payed for bullshiting-trashing-lying … and you will continue, as that is your way of life and your only mode for making, pardon, ripping-off money to honest people.
As already said, folks, stay hell away from chrome-brave-clones and use the browsers that actually can be tailored to your wishes and you can actually hardening them to high level of privacy (Firefox, SeaMonkey, IceCat, Librewolf …).
Yes, FF sells you to G & others, if you do nothing for your own privacy and security, but you can still opt out, i.e. firefox-ancestors-and-successors are the only browsers that could be hardened in terms of privacy. With brave-chrome-clone and others chrome-chromium-clones you don’t have that possibility, you are just sold. But it is obvious, that brave-chrome-fanboys are just brave-trolls-employees. Moz://a is G’s-bitch, but untill now you can still (for the sake of controled oposition) make firefox the only usable browser out there (of course together with others gecko family members: SeaMonkey, IceCat, Librewolf …).
>With brave-chrome-clone and others chrome-chromium-clones you don’t have that >possibility
false
a FF user, btw
@GeckoEngine
> With brave-chrome-clone and others chrome-chromium-clones you don’t have that possibility, you are just sold.
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove)#services–features-we-disable-entirely
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium#key-features
https://github.com/bromite/bromite#features
@Iron Heart
Libewolf has all the features of Firefox with telemetry and other connections completely removed. It installs by default Ublock Origin. It does not make even a single connection to servers that latest Firefox even with all telemetry disabled makes at the start. Ungoogled chromium is good. Librewolf and Ungoogled chromium are much much better in terms of privacy and security than Brave.
@FormerFirefoxUser
Ungoogled Chromium is being crippled to achieve its “zero connection” status (same goes for LibreWolf), i.e. there are no easy application updates, by default no way to add and update extensions, no certificate revocation etc.
Other browsers do not want to compromise their functionality like that, but if “zero connections” is important to you, then you know where you have to look for it already.
> Librewolf and Ungoogled chromium are much much better in terms of privacy and security than Brave.
As far as Ungoogled Chromium is concerned: It lacks privacy features which brave does have, e.g. more than just rudimentary fingerprinting protections, CNAME uncloaking, an internal adblocker that will survive the Manifest V3 extension slaughter etc. You are generalizing here, the only aspect where Ungoogled Chromium is “superior” (by intentionally crippling itself) is the default connections established – but that’s not the whole story as far as privacy is concerned. I don’t think it’s better than Brave in any other aspect.
@Iron Heart
Also what do you think of Iridium browser based on chromium. I think it is more privacy oriented browser.
@FormerFirefoxUser
Yeah, I think Icecat is decent provided that you use a build of it that more or less keeps up with Firefox ESR security updates (like this one here: https://github.com/muslayev/icecat-win64/releases ). They aim for decent usability. I think Fennec F-Droid on Android is also a good / decent variant of Firefox.
Iridium aims to be more usable out of the box than Ungoogled Chromium, but there are two major issues:
1) It fails to keep up with Chromium updates more often than not. Those updates contain security fixes.
2) It seems to weaken Chromium’s exploit mitigations by default even when they keep up with Chromium’s release schedule: https://old.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/j0xb61/whats_the_stance_on_iridium_browser_and_brave/g6w6br1/
@Iron Heart
Ice cat is not crippled to achieve “zero connection status” unlike Librewolf which some times tries to make connection to f.s.s.m.c.qjz9zk which off course does not exists and these urls are similar to ungoogled chromium fake urls. Icecat also does not any firefox prpietory component like pocket. Icecat is truly modified firefox for privacy while Librewolf and ungoogled chromium are patchups to firefox and chromium for privacy.
@Iron Heart
>>Ungoogled Chromium is being crippled to achieve its “zero connection†status (same goes for LibreWolf), i.e. there are no easy application updates, by default no way to add and update extensions, no certificate revocation etc.
Other browsers do not want to compromise their functionality like that, but if “zero connections†is important to you, then you know where you have to look for it already.
What do you think of Icecat? Icecat which is based on Firefox esr, does not have Firefox telemetry. You can have “zero connection” status or you can have opt-in or opt-out some features of Firefox esr. It has features which Librewolf disables like certificate revocations. The only disadvantage is slow updates and less updates provided by GNU Icecat.
Libewolf has all the features of Firefox with telemetry and other connections completely removed. It installs by default Ublock Origin. It does not make even a single connection to servers that latest Firefox even with all telemetry disabled makes at the start. Ungoogled chromium is good. Librewolf and Ungoogled chromium are much much better in terms of privacy and security than Brave.
@Iron Heart
Proxied services – proxied where, by who? One more company to trust by the way?
@IronHeart
Agree with you that goolag urls integrated into a default firefox configuration is bad for privacy, but they can be turned off for the most part simply and easily. Don’t assume that the goolag will not try and get its URL/Tentacles into Brave at some point if it gets more popular like firefox.
Brave has a lot of its own telemetry going on, i don’t know what its like now, but not so long ago it made connections to these domains even if the ad feature was not turned on
rewards.brave.com
api.rewards.brave.com
grant.rewards.brave.com
p3a.brave.com = telemetry collection, why are they collecting telemetry if its so private?
Brave today? thats like FF pocket, is that opt in by default? or is it opt out?
variations.brave.com = used to get affiliate list whether ads or opted in or not
static1.brave.com = gstatic = goolag website.
Brave is not perfect, brave tells you the telemetry reveals no personal user information, but FF says the same.
Can that telemetry be turned off in the Brave browser gui so that brave makes no connections? just curious, have you configured it to make no connections anywhere on first run just by using the basic browser gui?
@Anon7
You provide (partially) outdated information here:
> rewards.brave.com, api.rewards.brave.com, grant.rewards.brave.com
That is no longer the case. There was an issue in the early phase of the implementation of Brave Rewards where the internal Brave Rewards extension was running even when the feature was turned off, though no ads were displayed. Brave has since fixed this bug and those connections are no longer being established by default.
> p3a.brave.com
Yeah, that’s the telemetry domain. Telemetry can be turned off under brave://settings/privacy
> Brave today? thats like FF pocket, is that opt in by default? or is it opt out?
Opt-out, I think. Not a privacy issue.
> variations.brave.com
OK, so Brave downloads a non-personalized list of ads (ads = consisting of a text and a hyperlink in Brave’s case) even if the Brave Rewards feature is turned off. While not fantastic, it is again, not a privacy issue, and I assume that they do it so that Brave Rewards is immediately ready in case it is getting turned on spontaneously.
However, lack of privacy implications aside, I’d be inclined to agree that this should only happen when Brave Rewards is enabled.
> static1.brave.com
This is being used to fetch necessary plugin information, and as you can tell by the name of the connection already, they proxy this request to Google, so that Google never gets in direct contact with you.
> Brave is not perfect, brave tells you the telemetry reveals no personal user information, but FF says the same.
Yeah, except that Brave’s telemetry 1) can actually be turned off right in the settings menu (so no hidden about:config settings or out-of-browser telemetry here), 2) it is limited to the browser and does not install system level tasks, 3) is actually being processed by Brave Software, while Mozilla relies on third parties like Google Analytics, 4) is actually limited to what features you use, e.g. it doesn’t collect your default browser which is none of its business if it isn’t Brave (by contrast, Firefox collects the default browser no matter what).
Apples and oranges, I believe. Yes, it’s telemetry in both cases, but I think you fail to account for things like how easy it is for users to disable it or the general invasiveness of the telemetry.
> Can that telemetry be turned off in the Brave browser gui so that brave makes no connections?
Yes, under brave://settings/privacy …
I guess you mean the “telemetry” connection here, not “all” connections. If you don’t trust connections at all (not even the necessary ones Brave establishes for good reason), then feel free to run Ungoogled Chromium which is being crippled in order to avoid any connection (so no easy application updates, no extension updates by default, no cert revocation(!) etc.)… Don’t know if that’s better, the answer for me would be “No.”…
> just curious, have you configured it to make no connections anywhere on first run just by using the basic browser gui?
You can first run the Brave with related startup flags, just like you can insert a user.js file before first starting up Firefox. Whether or not that is necessary is up to the user, I think it is more important to stop the CONTINUED transmission of RELEVANT data.
By the way, here is a list of connections Brave currently establishes (article contains Firefox’s connections as well), if you are interested:
https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/
@m3city
Short of disabling SafeBrowsing entirely, which Brave Software is not inclined to do because of normie users, a proxy is the only way to anonymize the requests that reach Google.
If you don’t trust it anyway, turn it off.
@m3city
“If you don’t trust it anyway, turn it off.”
Well you wrote quite much about such policy :). IMHO safebrowsing is crap. But I don’t have any statistics to support that anyway.
@m3city
Read again what I have written: Brave Software proxies these requests to Google, you get no direct exposition to Google on Brave, which is why it is a lesser problem there. I turn it off because I see no point in it and think that uBO’s anti-malware lists suffice… However, I don’t think you can seriously disagree when I say that exposing your downloads to Google by default in FF is not a problem.
Originally, I wanted to make it clear that switching the search engine is not enough to disconnect Firefox from Google, contrary to popular belief.
Updated at 01:02 PM IST
I have abandoned Firefox as it doesn’t have good tracking as Brave.
I think Firefox tracks you well enough and sells your data to either Google or 3rd parties.
@ Allwynd
Proof ? Or is this another rumour spread by a ” Firefox Hater ” ?
Have you ever used Firefox ?
“Proof ?”
About Firefox selling data to Google: Firefox has a search deal with Google. It’s close to selling user data. Even the US government is questioning the morality of that deal with its anti-trust inquiry. In that case it’s full fledged non anonymous personal data, to the mother of all tracking companies, that is stored and in addition known to be abused by the police already. The address bar keylogger to Google Search, and removing the dedicated search box, is even closer to selling data. There are many other places where Google needlessly receives user data from Firefox or other Mozilla properties, that Mozilla claims are not officially part of their Google deal, but even if we believe them, when a for-profit receives such a huge absolute and relative amount of money from Google and has already proved many times how they will walk an extra mile to please Google against the users, distinguishing how much of the data they give to Google is or not a consequence of being paid by Google becomes a matter of opinion.
Same reasoning for the many other third-parties involved in receiving data from Firefox. Mozilla may claim that they were not officially paid or bribed by Cloudflare for example to send all that sensitive browsing data to them, but how much of it should be considered as coming from them being a well paid puppet of Google and surveillance capitalism ? By the way the Google money source of Mozilla owns part of Cloudflare and more generally its own DNS servers benefit considerably from Mozilla spreading the lie that sending an extra copy of browsing data to filthy companies like Cloudflare is a great privacy idea.
Mozilla is monetizing browsing history for Pocket targeted ads. It should be called selling data (to Pocket or to advertisers) but Google and Mozilla have forbidden that use of the word, in a similar way that Google pretends not to sell data (the EFF disagrees on that last point in the Google case at least by the way). I don’t know what we’re allowed to call it today without being censored, renting data maybe ? Exploiting, abusing, monetizing data ?
Then there was the Cliqz story about selling user data to third-parties. But they always find smart ways to play with the words to say it didn’t happen. Maybe Cliqz should be considered as “part of the Mozilla family” so it’s not really a third-party they sold data to ? It’s true that they have shares in that company but it only makes it worse. Or maybe they will declare that because they anonymized data derived from your browsing data, it’s no longer “your” data, no longer “user data”, it’s just data that they claim ownership on from now on, to do whatever they want with without your consent, including selling it ?
That was a small and very incomplete discussion just on Mozilla “selling” data, but the more general Mozilla “tracking” us would deserve a whole book in itself.
Not if you don’t use Google and block their ads / trackers
@Anonymous
Firefox uses Google Analytics for its Activity Stream and on about:addons. Firefox also uses Google SafeBrowsing by default – which exposes your download hashes to Google – and it also uses Google’s location services by default.
So switching the search engine clearly isn’t enough here. Stop spreading misinformation.
>> Firefox also uses Google SafeBrowsing by default – which exposes your download hashes to Google
More than the contents hash: name and origin too. That scandalous opt-out “feature”, alone, would be enough to call Firefox a spyware, even if the dozens of other privacy problems weren’t there too.
Source:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work#w_what-information-is-sent-to-mozilla-or-its-partners-when-phishing-and-malware-protection-are-enabled
It seems that on mobile Firefox, this can’t even be disabled at all now.
Source:
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/14163
Not even using about:config prefs.
Source:
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/17888
Even forks are struggling as a consequence.
Source:
https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser/issues/145
F*ck you, Mozilla. And enjoy your Google money, data parasites.
anon,you make this out to be a problem on only Firefox but it is not. Other browsers either
desktop or mobile also have Google Safe Browsing and it is enabled by default. You can’t
turn it off in other mobile browsers while Firefox for android may eventually get the about:config
back in a future update.
“anon,you make this out to be a problem on only Firefox but it is not. Other browsers either
desktop or mobile also have Google Safe Browsing and it is enabled by default”
First: not all browsers.
Second: the situation is not symmetric. Mozilla is the large company that actively knocked down the door by enforcing this first for Google against the resistance of the privacy community. Once this became the norm in a major browser that falsely advertises itself as “private” and everyone became used to it, it required much more balls from independent forks to make the extra step of saying “no”, compared to the initial Mozilla choice of selling out. Some still say no. Some would like to say no but don’t make it a priority because they have partly bought the Mozilla/Google security propaganda or because they are partly tied to surveillance capitalism themselves although to a lesser level. Some said fine let’s passively follow. But none has the level of guilt of Mozilla here. The same goes for many other wrong things Mozilla did and it is very important to understand this because it is much of why Mozilla exists in the first place. They don’t just do evil things like your ordinary small rogue company or the big tech ones: they make evil the new good, infecting the resistance efforts with their ideas. That makes them much worse.
“You can’t
turn it off in other mobile browsers while Firefox for android may eventually get the about:config
back in a future update.”
In other terms, for what matters: You can’t even turn it off in Firefox for android (by Mozilla’s fault), exactly what I said, and as a consequence forks have to do extra work to attempt to deal with that as I said. Congratulations for trying to turn that into a pro-Firefox point. And no, it won’t get about:config back. about:config is going to be used even less in the future, it will probably vanish from desktop at some point. The user.js is already planned to be slashed too. Then you will blame forks for not being able to use user.js to undo Mozilla damage and use that as an argument to support Mozilla. Either you are ignorant of how Mozilla thinks or you are purposefully dishonest to defend them.
>> infecting the resistance efforts with their ideas
Holy hell dial it down and stop pretending you guys are some great ‘resistance fighters’. How bloated can egos get?!
I should give another reason why forks, while being salutary compared to Firefox, are sometimes not always best serving the users, beyond the reasons already given that they have a remnant of credulity that Mozilla is on our side or that they may themselves be paid too by ad and tracking businesses.
That reason is sabotage from inside. Mozilla installs its drones in fork communities to make sure that no discourse hostile to them, Google and their other partners is allowed to flourish there, and that those forks deviate as little as possible from Firefox and Chrome, especially for the worst anti-features.
In the Waterfox case someone who finally identified himself some day as from Mozilla (not clear if he meant paid by too) was doing very nice benevolent community support, became a trusted figure, finally even got moderation powers (although to be honest I don’t remember him being among those who abused that part). He happened to be a strong supporter of putting back in Waterfox Pocket, or smaller things like TLS session identifiers, he was arguing in favor of Mozilla’s consentless data collection, supporting their claims about the trustworthiness of the corporate press for fact checking, and generally saying that Waterfox shouldn’t be about privacy at all. About what, then ? User freedom… to use Pocket as built-in for example. He’s no longer very active but it looks like he was replaced with another guy doing active “community support” while insulting violently the privacy interested users whenever he can.
The developer too hardly allows any criticism of the tracking companies that are in fact his revenue sources directly or not, like Mozilla or Microsoft. An excuse given is that “we may need their help”. That’s another way of saying that users are being abused because Mozilla has Google’s money resources and consequently propaganda resources too to monopolize gullible benevolent contributors too, while forks are not independent enough to be even allowed to talk against that abuse. I hear Mozilla say the same thing about not blocking ads: but we need “sites” to be on our side. Then it’s admitted, you are not on the user side and we shouldn’t use your software.
The former ghacks user.js case has been discussed here previously, it’s also something used as an input in forks and that has admitted being 100% on Mozilla’s side whatever they do, aggressively bashing and censoring Mozilla opponents and privacy supporters, and now slowly reintroducing or never disabling at all many things like Pocket, TLS session identifiers, Cloudflare dns…
Who knows what happened to the Librefox fork. Its sudden death remains a mystery to its own community.
Even the Librewolf fork is worried about not pleasing Mozilla. After a heated discussion here regarding Mozilla’s corruption and LibreWolf being a possible ethical alternative, the only little, very mild, explicit criticism of Mozilla that existed on this project magically disappeared from the docs:
https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/docs/-/commit/5d06c7ef26883bb0162547c8b984f0a7fba21200
Their stated reason is that Mozilla is actually nice and helpful with them. I don’t see them nice at all, I see them spitting on forks. As for being helpful, sure the link above is an example of their “helpful” contributions. The author of the arkenfox file they use isn’t very tender either about them and other forks.
So for various reasons forks are not independent enough to revert all the Mozilla damage and even to speak openly against Mozilla. The Palemoon case (which has its own ethical problems, like search deals and sympathy for ads) is an example of what happens when forks openly defy Mozilla and Google and stop making concessions to them. The torrents of hate that are unloaded on the PM developers for that reason speak for themselves. Even on professional environments like github I have seen them called “mentally ill” by some individual in an issue they had opened (a recurring attack from Mozilla against the privacy community it seems).
@Iron Heart
Does FF use goolgle location servces or MLS?
Safebrowsing is enabled by default in brave browser, isn’t it? Did you check what kind of info is sent with safebrowsing?
Google analytics – if one installs any blocker, let it be uB, then its… blocked? If user turns off activity stream, then its… off?
@m3city
“Then turn it off” – the solution of FF users for every issue. You are aware of the fact that the defaults are how most people use FF, right? Some people can operate the settings menu, far fewer know of about:config, and of those knowing of about:config, only a part is making any notable changes.
You can’t block the internal use of Google Analytics with uBO because WebExtensions are banned from working on internal pages of FF. Firefox uses Google’s location services by default, not Mozilla’s.
> Safebrowsing is enabled by default in brave browser, isn’t it?
Proxied, yes. And turning it off is easier in Brave.
> Did you check what kind of info is sent with safebrowsing?
That Google learns of download hashes is bad enough already, in terms of privacy. Most people DON’T want to share things with Google unknowingly.
I don’t have Google Safe Browsing enabled, anyway it is also on by default in Brave & 99%
will have it running.
@Anonymous
1) Brave proxies the SafeBrowsing connection: https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/108
2) SafeBrowsing isn’t totally bad, we are talking about a privacy vs. security tradeoff here.
3) It’s still a connection which Firefox establishes with Google, whether it’s consierded good or bad notwithstanding. My post was about the fact that switching the search engine in FF is not enough to end all of its connection to Google.
@ Iron Heart
1
You do NOT use Firefox. You use Brave. Therefore you do not have the knowledge to comment on Firefox. Unless, of course, you install FF and test it thoroughly.
2
Using uBo and about:config, it is very easy to block Google Analytics and Google Safe Browsing.
NB Please do not analyse this comment line by line, or by posting links which,supposedly, “prove” your claims.
Note that I am not a fanatical FF fanboy wh hates everybody.
Stop spreading misinformation.
@Tom Mc
> You do NOT use Firefox. You use Brave.
And? Does that automatically make my statements incorrect?
> Therefore you do not have the knowledge to comment on Firefox.
Nothing stops me from knowing which connections Firefox establishes, haha. I have a Firefox installation at hand, though I’d never use it as my primary.
> Using uBo and about:config, it is very easy to block Google Analytics and Google Safe Browsing.
This is about the defaults, i.e. how 95%++ of all FF use their browser.
> NB Please do not analyse this comment line by line
Afraid that your BS might get exposed? Well, too late.
> Stop spreading misinformation.
You were unable to refute anything I said, except by stating “well, modify about:config then”, which is not the point of contention here at all. Firefox establishes various connections to Google by default, that’s all I wanted to say.
Well Brave is a browser that made by an ad company. Obviously it will track you more and less think about your privacy.
@Anonymous
Again, someone who obviously doesn’t know how Brave Rewards work:
https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/
No kind of user data is being transmitted to Brave Software or any third party in the process! Furthermore, the feature is opt-in, disabled by default.
Firefox comes with hardcoded trackers:
https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/blt6ft/mobile_firefox_app_shares_your_data_with/
Considering that, I think Firefox users would be well-advised to stay silent on this matter.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/03/brave-is-launching-its-own-search-engine-with-the-help-of-ex-cliqz-devs-and-tech/
First Eich in common, now Cliqz people, and since the beginning exploiting private data for advertisers. Brave=Mozilla=Google, let them all burn.
@Iron Heart
You wrote:
Firefox comes with hardcoded trackers:
https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/blt6ft/mobile_firefox_app_shares_your_data_with/
Did you read the whole thread you linked to? You see, it’s always like that with you – cherry picking, drawing general conclusions while such generalisation cannot be drawn without footnotes. This news is about desktop version of FF, not mobile. And based on your link, it only applies in certain situations, versions and IF installed from google play store. There is a whole world without google, you know?
@m3city
This is about attitude more than anything. Of course, the Leanplum & Adjust trackers are limited to Firefox on Android. Google Analytics is also used in the desktop versions of FF.
Now, when I read something like this coming from a FF user…
> Well Brave is a browser that made by an ad company. Obviously it will track you more and less think about your privacy.
…then perhaps a little bit of self-awareness wouldn’t hurt. Mozilla has no problems with inserting actual third party trackers into its applications, but Brave is being criticized for a local algorithm (which Firefox also has, btw, see Pocket Stories for more info). That’s just ridiculous – ridiculously biased.
PS: Your pretense that 99% of all FF Android users are not getting FF from the Play Store can be left out of the equation, I think. Because they ARE getting it from the Play Store.
@Iron Heart
So you see that link you provided stated something else you wrote here. Rest of your answer seem to adress another post than mine?
And I didnt say anything about % of users getting FF from play store. I got it other way.
@m3city
> So you see that link you provided stated something else you wrote here.
???
I am in no way contradicting any link I’ve posted here.
If Mozilla wasn’t trying to be like Chrome with their asinine release schedule, maybe these bugs would be caught before the release.
It turns out chrome copies Firefox now.
They’re resorting to updates every four weeks.
I use both current and nightly builds (to see if fission borks anything but seems it doesnt).
Bad
Bad
Amazon
@Amazon,
well I don’t find it bad, what do you mean? If thats the feeling about FF you have then you can safely keep it for yourself.
got it at 1030 eastern time
Eastern time of Russia, China? Or do you mean UTC-4?
https://www.worldtimezone.com/ :-)