> If it's not Manifest V3 that makes the Internet safe for advertising, it'll be a "browser integrity" token or some other kind of DRM-by-another-name.
There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header. Also, crank your browser's privacy settings too high, and any website with twitchy Cloudflare settings will give you the sisyphean "I'm not a bot" check box until you give up and go away (or come back with a Chrome that's hungry for cookies).
So no, on our present course, Firefox will not save us. And even if every HN reader used it, that wouldn't even come close to pushing its usage share out of the single digits.
>There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header
There are countless banks out there. I have bank accounts with several different institutions in two different countries and they all work fine with Firefox + uBO. If yours doesn't, why are you supporting them?
>Also, crank your browser's privacy settings too high, and any website with twitchy Cloudflare settings will give you the sisyphean "I'm not a bot" check box until you give up and go away (or come back with a Chrome that's hungry for cookies).
I haven't seen this. If a website is too much of a PITA to use, I just won't use it, and I suggest you do the same.
> There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header.
Don't use that bank.
> Also, crank your browser's privacy settings too high, and any website with twitchy Cloudflare settings will give you the sisyphean "I'm not a bot" check box
Don't use that website.
It's certainly true that you have no agency or self respect if you embrace a defeatist and submissive outlook.
Do you think the situation will improve while Firefox has 3% market share, down ~2% from 2 years ago, and with <1% share on mobile?
You're nitpicking, there are lots of corporate sites that only test against Chrome/Safari these days. I'd love it if Firefox would regain popularity, and Chrome would lose its stranglehold, but let's not stick our heads in the sand about the way things are going.
If a website is useless to me because I'm using the "wrong" browser, my solution is to not use that website. Easy peasy.
Even if it's my bank -- there are other methods of doing business with most banks, after all. And if my bank, for whatever reason, can only be dealt with through their website then I'd change banks in a heartbeat.
Are you failing to respond to the point about the web environment integrity digital rights management proposals because you don't understand it, or because you somehow just don't think it is relevant? Like, in a world where Google gets that deployed and websites start to rely on it, what, exactly, do you think your ad block extension is even going to do?
How exactly is YouTube going to implement this new stuff on millions of embedded clients, namely smart TVs and other such devices that have YouTube clients built-in, and which never get updated? If YT tried to implement some kind of DRM like this, they'll instantly lose a large portion of their userbase.
They can afford to play the long game and roll it out over a decade or so if it means complete control of the web. By then old devices can be "reasonably" dropped from support for some BS Security excuse or another.
Edit: an example is Windows 11 requiring new enough processors for security reasons even though it would run on older PCs.
I will not use those sites simple as. If there is media I want I can get it from the high seas, for free and have a better view experience. The corps have more too lose in this game. If they want more piracy and this is how you get more piracy.
The nuclear option will eventually be to just ban Google accounts for using any ad blocking.
The question is whether that atmosphere would simply cause people to quit Google services vs. turn off Adblock altogether to continue using them. I would wager that the latter would be far more likely and common for the average person.
I agree with your intuition on the latter being more likely. And Google won't care about the minority of power users they lose. They've been outwardly hostile toward power users with Android for years.
True, but getting an iPhone to tinker with is kind of like buying a book to rearrange the words into your own story. They crafted a beautiful walled garden for you, and the walls are a feature - which is definitely not for everyone.
That said, I have fond memories of installing Linux on my iPod Mini so I understand the joy of making devices do things they were never intended to do.
> The nuclear option will eventually be to just ban Google accounts for using any ad blocking.
The collateral damage from that would probably lead to the mother and father of all class-action lawsuits, literal Acts of Congress, and EU fines that Google would have to get a second job in order to pay if they don't try to break them up outright.
Firefox only survives because Google props it up. I don’t think Google can stop completely without incurring antitrust wrath, but they could probably start attaching strings and conditions to the funding.
Alternatively, the more users Firefox has, the more incentive Google has to twist Mozilla's arm. I doubt that ultimately defeats forks that are maintained by volunteers (https://librewolf.net/), and I don't want to discourage Firefox adoption, but it's not quite so cut-and-dry as "use Firefox". There will likely come a time that it's "use this community fork of old-Firefox-before-it-got-Googled".
Still not a case against Firefox; just pointing out there's more to the picture.
In the past, when FF was stronger, they took search deals with other engines (yahoo, bing). If their numbers go back up, it could be a viable strategy again.
Maybe I'm old, but doing the right thing on the internet has always been harder than just going with the flow. Using Linux in 2000 was very hard, using Firefox in 2001 was no walk in the park - but one gotta do what one gotta do, if one has some principles.
In other words, if Firefox becomes popular enough, there's a chance that Google will deliver a nail to Mozilla's coffin in pulling their search deal and other funding which is the backbone of their business in a financial level.
Another example is that Mozilla has a LOT to lose if the DOJ wins in the US v. Google antitrust trial just for those deals.
