Firefox 120 Stable includes a large number of privacy improvements designed to better protect the privacy of users of the browser.
  • SuperDuper@lemmy.worldEnglish
    295·
    1 year ago

    Firefox release notes: we improved the privacy of our browser

    Chrome release notes: fuck you and fuck your fucking adblock

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
        601·
        1 year ago

        Clarity is needed here. The California language that sparked all this is qualified with “about FakeSpot’s products and services”. Meaning it could simply be third-party services that they send their own emails through.

        After reading their privacy policy, nothing jumps out at me that contradicts this.

        To be clear, I’m not a fan of the extension’s collection practices, but the down votes could be because this may be unwarranted fear.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.worldEnglish
          375·
          1 year ago

          Unwarranted fear or healthy skepticism? This is the perfect time to “just ask questions.” Firefox is selling itself as a privacy respecting platform and therefore should be held to a higher standard than the garbage that is chrome. If it can pass the test it will be proven again and earn more trust which should result in more users, if it fails then it deserves to be criticised and lose users. Point is if you are selling yourself as privacy respecting you are selling yourself by default as ethical.

          • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            100% agree. I wasn’t trying to say the collection practice isn’t bad, just that the other linked threads may be taking things a bit farther than what the policy actually says.

          • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            Because they are now owned by Mozilla. As stated above, I, like others, don’t like the practice, and I hope Mozilla adjusts acordingly.

              • steakmeout@aussie.zoneEnglish
                11·
                1 year ago

                You understand why they changed those terms, right? Because Mozilla isn’t reselling the data and the data can’t go elsewhere.

              • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
                51·
                1 year ago

                Sure, but this doesn’t mean much. If they didn’t transfer ownership, FakeSpot could do whatever they wanted with that data. By forcing the transfer, Mozilla can choose to keep it private.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.worldEnglish
      312·
      1 year ago

      Well, it said right there in the article that until today, Brave was that only browser that would truncate tracker tags when copying a URL to clipboard.

      Moar browsers == moar innovation.

    • haruki@programming.devEnglish
      223·
      1 year ago

      Default Brave blocks ads more aggressively than default Firefox. Of course you can achieve that with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but add-ons are not available on iOS and iPad OS.

      That’s just my experience. I still use Firefox + Firefox Focus BTW. To block more aggressively, I also use VPN + Adguard Home.

      • Colonel Sanders@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        This. Only reason I use Brave is for my iPhone (which I am already planning to jump back to Android when it’s time for a new phone) because I can listen to YouTube videos/music in the background and no ads when going through the browser (another reason I’m going back to Android is for Revanced). Everything else is FF

      • online@lemmy.mlEnglish
        44·
        1 year ago

        Yep and for some people it’s too hard to think about extensions so just having them install Brave is a perfect recommendation (for now anyway).

      • varsock@programming.devEnglish
        14·
        1 year ago

        Brave has superior fingerprint protection, they achieve this by randomizing the browsers fingerprint. Visit EFF’s cover your tracks to test your browser.

        To achieve the same functionality that brave achieves out of the box with Firefox I need many extensions and then when I profile both browsers, Firefox is more resource intensive. Brave’s blocking is native to the browser. I will give Firefox the W because I’ve read that uBlock is technically more capable. But as a long time Firefox/uBlock user who switched to brave - this has not been noticable.

        As for accessibility, I can configure brave to be really aggressive at ad blocking, tracking blocking, fingerprint blocking, and restricting JS even, and all those options I can set from one place instead of in different settings/extensions. When a website breaks, I click on the button next to the URL and immediately have options to granularly dial down the “protection” or add a website to my trusted list. In Firefox I was annoyed to having go through settings for the extension.

        Brave plans to continue supporting Manifest V2 after Google kills it. For Ungoogled Chromium, however, it’s still undecided, likely depending on whether UG contributors are willing to maintain it.

    • not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.worldEnglish
      59·
      1 year ago

      The only reason why I still have Brave installed is because some sites don’t work with Firefox. Like Webflow’s editor. At least they claim it’s not supported yet.

      • PlexSheep@feddit.deEnglish
        231·
        1 year ago

        I use chromium for that, there are many better browsers (even chromium forks) than braves IMO.

        • not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          No, technically, I don’t even have to. The website just gives a message that it wasn’t tested on Firefox. But it’s still usable. I just don’t want to deal with any problems that might arise in the complicated process of building a website in the browser.

    • varsock@programming.devEnglish
      26·
      1 year ago

      Brave has superior fingerprint protection, they achieve this by randomizing the browsers fingerprint. Visit EFF’s cover your tracks to test your browser.

      To achieve the same functionality that brave achieves out of the box with Firefox I need many extensions and then when I profile both browsers, Firefox is more resource intensive. Brave’s blocking is native to the browser. I will give Firefox the W because I’ve read that uBlock is technically more capable. But as a long time Firefox/uBlock user who switched to brave - this has not been noticable.

      As for accessibility, I can configure brave to be really aggressive at ad blocking, tracking blocking, fingerprint blocking, and restricting JS even, and all those options I can set from one place instead of in different settings/extensions. When a website breaks, I click on the button next to the URL and immediately have options to granularly dial down the “protection” or add a website to my trusted list. In Firefox I was annoyed to having go through settings for the extension.

      Brave plans to continue supporting Manifest V2 after Google kills it. For Ungoogled Chromium, however, it’s still undecided, likely depending on whether UG contributors are willing to maintain it.

    • prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      513·
      1 year ago

      Because Firefox Android sucks, no trolling. It’s slow and in some pages, specially with video DRM don’t even work. Two, there are features lacking on Firefox for few use cases like clipboard with VNC “Your browser is not configured to allow access to your computer’s clipboard”. Besides, people here are so politically biased that they are capable of justify some crap that comes with Firefox such as pocket full of ads, ads by default on Android in the main page, and other less “shady” things, like Mozilla CEOs salary. I will be open to considerate again by default if Firefox Android receives a great performance upgrade. Something that I liked about brave here is that they said it will support MV2 extensions when MV3 comes.

        • prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          12·
          1 year ago

          I’m using Firefox Nightly on Android, there is not other bleeding edge branch. On desktop the story is completely different. Listen, I’m not here because of the politics. Eich is shit because his postures about gay marriage, we all know that. I am here exclusively to talk about performance and what is the better tech stack of browsers.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Cool man, I agree on Eich, not that I was aware of it at all before. It’s tragic how politics complicates everything for all the wrong reasons.

            I don’t know what the best tech stack is (esp. on mobile), and I’ve always hated how mobile-based Firefox struggles to go full screen with videos half of the time.

            I think fennec is just a fork that removes some Mozilla tracking, possibly only available via FDroid(?). It’s no different really…

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      30·
      1 year ago

      Hopefully between Firefox’s recent streak of good releases and Google majorly jumping the shark lately we’ll see Chrome marketshare take a dive.

        • Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          26·
          1 year ago

          Cloudflare says 4.7%. I trust them more with these statistics because

          • they serve a significant chunk of the internet
          • they collect data serverside and I’m pretty sure more people block tracking scripts than change their user agent

          But yes, it’s way too small

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            Eh, I’m ok with it being small. You get targeted by fewer exploits if you’re using a browser that isn’t high in market share. There’s also less incentive to try to monetize their market share than when it’s very popular.

        • nicetriangle@kbin.social
          12·
          1 year ago

          Just crazy to me that Firefox is that low I really hope they can rebound. Chrome’s strangehold on browser engines is bad for everyone.

    • n00b001@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Yeah!

      Now hopefully they can enable HDR video playback within the next few years (bug open for 5 years at this point)

    • LedgeDrop@lemm.eeEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the comprehensive write-up. It convinced me to migrate back to Firefox.

      I was on Firefox (8 years ago), moved to Chrome (I liked the non-admin/transparent update feature and Websites didn’t break like they did with ff), then moved to brave (basically chrome + more privacy), and now I’ll go back the Firefox (I hope I won’t encounter too many non-FF websites)

        • LedgeDrop@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Neato, I’ll check it out. I’m also trying out mull for android (as I’d like to keep my desktop/cellphone bookmarks/browser-history in sync)

          • LedgeDrop@lemm.eeEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            I expect to have some website compatibility issues with Firefox/librewolf, as it does have a 3% share of the global browser market - so, website development energy is focused on the chrome/safari experience. However, 8+ years ago I felt I needed to use chrome at least every other day to view certain websites - it was frustrating.

            I’m hoping (and willing to try it out) to see if this has improved.

      • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        If you want to non ff sites to work on ff you can just spoof tour user agent. 90% of non ff sites actually work. Some use web usb and bluetooth stuff that doesnt work on ff.

    • PlexSheep@feddit.deEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      I always use do not track. If they fingerprint me with that, they are explicitly disregarding it. It obviously gives moral superiority.

  • Paddzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    432·
    1 year ago

    It’s a real shame industry doesn’t embrace firefox. There’s far too many things i rely on which only runs on chromium.

        • Evkob@lemmy.caEnglish
          15·
          1 year ago

          The easiest way is by using an add-on. Alternatively, you can change it manually under general.useragent.override in your about:config

          Also I swear I’m not trying to be an ass, but entering “how to change user agent string firefox” in your preferred search engine would have gotten you an answer much quicker.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        No idea how MS Teams go these days, but at some point they did do something silly that would break in Firefox, no free pass. Knowing that it doesn’t do anything fancy and that it worked before, it made us very suspicious that this was a targeted move.

    • berg@lemm.eeEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      I call bullshit, take the time to readjust and you’ll find replacements. Maybe not as good, but we gotta start somewhere. And this is me hoping you’re talking about some arbitrary devtools.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, sure, go work in any corporate environment that have to work with outsiders, or even just a slightly large structure, and just tell people “take time to readjust, and you’ll find replacements”.

        I’m in a very small structure, and even getting people to ditch Outlook in favor of Thunderbird is impossible because “they can’t work with it”. I know what they do with Outlook, I know they can do it with Thunderbird, but that does not make people magically accept change. We setup a whole ecosystem of tools, self-hosted, that performs adequately and can handle everything we do. This did not stop management from getting more Teams license.

        Wishful thinking is nice as long as you live in a vacuum or are omnipotent. Back in the real, non frictionless world, this takes time, careful preparation, and the slightest bump will throw all efforts out the window.

        • berg@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I’m not even talking about ditching Office 365, I’m talking about ditching Chrome, for Firefox, where O365 works just as well. I don’t even mind O365 in corporate environments. It simplifies things. I do mind it for my personal stuff though.

          There’s very little friction for a non tech-savvy person to ditch Chrome for Firefox as long as you help them transfer their passwords and bookmarks. The biggest complaint will be “it looks different”, which sure can be a no go. There should be even less friction for a tech-savvy person.

      • Paddzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        26·
        1 year ago

        What are you on about. You literally got ZERO clue how much chromium holds monopoly on browser drivers. Go on, try to get anything from a third party to work with HID webhooks. I don’t even use Chrome, but that’s how little you know. “Not as good”? My god, you have a lot to learn if you ever want to work in any specialised field. No, we don’t have to start somewhere. Business needs to keep running and unless industry as a whole improves, you won’t see any meaningful adoption in a professional setting.

        • berg@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          1 year ago

          I’m just tired of these excuses. Either you take a stand and do the bare minimum to keep the freaking free web alive or you go down with excuses of superior tech. I don’t know shit about modern web tech, thank fucking God, because no one can tell me it hasn’t gone straight downhill last ten years with a straight face. There may be cool tech demos in a few places, but that’s it about it. It’s just gotten bloated.

          • Paddzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            It has gone downhill. But there are genuine reasons why people are locked to apple, google, microsft etc.

            Unless you’re willing to spend another 6 million for new machinery… You’re not strong arming them into supporting new platform. Hell, one of the most popular gene slicer machines only runs on XP. No compatibility or tweaking will make it work. Much smarter people have tried.

            Welcome to the world of true big tech. It’s where consumer grade is thankfully not heading but doesn’t mean it’s not getting worse, those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

    • Agent641@lemmy.worldEnglish
      291·
      1 year ago

      TFW sense of superiority knowing I started using firefox since late 2000s and never once abandoned it.

      • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nlEnglish
        52·
        1 year ago

        Ok yeah it’s much easier to get my dad to tell me he’s on “v2.12.6.001-build7F2023n12-kb0A hotfix”

        That’s a false dichotomy. Firefox version numbering was never like that. It used the scheme major_version.minor_version.patch_release like almost every piece of software except browsers still uses.

        The advantage of this system is that the numbers are meaningful: they tell you how significant a release is, whereas with straight versioning the version number gives you no clue about what the “119 to 120 upgrade” contains. It might be simple bugfixes, it might add some new functionality or it might be a complete overhaul that breaks everything.

        The reason why browsers switched to a straight versioning scheme was never to make it easier for users to identify which release they’re on. The reason was artificial version inflation (i.e. “my version is bigger than yours”), and to force users into an incessant upgrade treadmill. In the past users could for example hold back on a major release upgrade until all the kinks were worked out while still receiving maintenance for their older major release.

    • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      1 year ago

      Version numbers are almost meaningless for end-user software anyway. Add 1 every time it changes is about the best you can do.

      • Subverb@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        I remember using Nvidia drivers in the 70s years ago. I also remember thinking it was crazy when they rolled over 100. 😂

        • Free Palestine 🇵🇸@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          it was crazy when they rolled over 100

          It was the same with Firefox and Chromium when they hit version 100. Some developers were scared that websites would start crashing because of the three digit version string in the user-agent.

    • ViscloReader@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s alright, sure it’s not conventional but you get the point after all and non techy people also get the point. bigger number = highest update

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    8·
    1 year ago

    I know this won’t affect LibreWolf immediately but can anyone speculate as to how or when the Firefox updates would affect LibreWolf, if at all?

    I switched from FF to LW recently so I’m just curious what the relationship(s) might be.

    ETA: Another question: How do I update LW without the LW updater? Uninstall and reinstall? Thanks!

  • sviper@programming.devEnglish
    107·
    1 year ago

    Firefox is good privacy wise, but does not have sensible default. Also there have been times when mozilla have made not so promising statements.

    For true privacy enthusiasts see See LibreWolf