Firefox removed Yandex search option
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-or-remove-search-en...
Be aware that in Firefox, the "Search Bar" is a distinct widget from the "Address Bar" (omnibar/"awesomebar"). If it's missing or you can't find it, here's the docs for that UX flow:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customize-firefox-contr...
If you do this, you can (of course) revert your change in about:preferences#search; the new search engine will persist there as an alternate choice.
(Tested and confirmed this works with e.g. Yandex in release version 98.0.1. This patch only removed, essentially, Firefox' promoted or sponsored search engines -- not core functionality. (It also erased and reset user preferences, but that's a separate problem)).
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/a-little-something-aweso...
I'll take your word for it it came from Chrome's Omnibar, the timeline in my memory lines up.
(In my defense, even the support.mozilla.org docs themselves seem to avoid it; the one I linked only refers to it as "address bar").
> Discover, experience and connect with apps, websites and people on your own terms, everywhere.
Why do you not give people choice on their own terms, everywhere?
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-privacy...
"we develop products and advocate for best practices that put users in control of their data and online experiences."
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/celebrating-cho...
"We put people in control of their online experience"
The page description for the Firefox main page used to say "Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to putting individuals in control online", and before that, instead of "individuals" it said "users". I've quipped before that the change was because they really meant "people working at Mozilla" by "individuals". Now it's something vague about "respecting your privacy" (just like what Facebook and Google claim to do too...)
Edit: probably going to just buy a domain and protonmail as a contingency plan, though. Don’t want to lose access.
me@nslick.com
It's like a tsunami of spam and phishing emails.
As for the global issues,
a) Iron curtain for the Internet (i. e. absolutely everything not working properly) would be a sure way to get every commoner, currently soothed with entertainment, on the street.
b) This won't last long anyway. I would be more worried about sudden drop of funding and technical issues.
For example, Facebook popularity in Russia is maybe 1/10th of Instagram popularity in Russia, and Vkontakte is used 5× more that that.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/867549/top-active-social...
So there's a huge difference between those few platforms blocking Russia but a whole world of alternative ways to spend time online vs. only domestic Russian options.
> Yandex and Mail.ru have been removed as optional search providers in the drop-down search menu in Firefox.
[0]https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/98.0.1/releasenotes/
It might be less noticeable in the West, where Google hasn't really been challenged, but it was different in Russia. When Yandex had to switch to “defend the user share” mode, it stopped announcing interesting things (it used to please the public with nice stuff here and cool stuff there, and implemented some of that long before Google), and double downed on all that dumb crap (having the browser you fully control, having three ads to install it on a single page, pushing it into everything, and so on).
On a related note, Firefox does have LTS (long term support) releases for enterprises or users who don’t want to move so fast. As I recall, Chrome was late to the LTS party, and before that it was forcing upgrades (because they happen periodically, behind the scenes) on users.
They’ll both hit version 100 in just a month or two. If too many websites are broken because they never expected a browser’s User-Agent string to have a version number with more than two digits, Chrome or Firefox might need to freeze the version number advertised in the User-Agent string.
(The editorialized submission title is obviously against HN guidelines, but it’s unclear what should be done about it if the original page title is purposefully obscure—and it does seem to be, even given what I said above. Wait for independent reporting to use a more straightforward one?..)
[1] https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/a03a9c72d1db
Grigory Bakunov[1] (ex-Yandex) observes Yandex has been removed (but e.g. OZON is still there): https://t.me/addmeto/4782 (ru, but basically amounts to a screenshot)
Mozilla posts a vague note saying the “default search engine” (NB: omnibox default, not just installation default) may change in Firefox 98, no specific engines are named: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-engine-removal (en)
No, IIRC it just needs to have an appropriate OpenSearch xml file to have support for omnibox. I use a third-party engine that isn't bundled in FF and it works fine in omnibox.
Submitters: if you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/shortlog/35f...
Basically, Firefox 98.0.1 is a point release only concerned with removing Yandex search for users in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey, and switching them all to Google by default. Some old promotions from mail.ru and ok.ru were blocked, too, but these have been dead as a doornail and irrelevant.
Note the smoking gun: regular Google links were used in configuration file on 11 March, and then were switched to firefox-tagged (sponsored) ones on 13 March (“part 2”). Why couldn't Mozilla switch Yandex search users to regular Yandex links the same way if they reportedly had “troubles” with their agreement, which supposedly would be the best for the users, and best for Mozilla, apparently? Imagine their wet faces when they beg on their knees for more after successful extension of Google's sponsorship agreement onto 4 big countries, and you'll know why.
The changelog for 98.0.1 is currently absent. The changelog for 98 has a vague note about search engines. The relevant code-related bugs have zero explanations. Bug 1748923 is private. The UI that alerts the user about the removed search engine was introduced two weeks ago (and had it text changed to be more vague). There is a specific (and vague) help article about the switch:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-engine-removal
However, the first signs were noticed about a month ago (in Russian):
https://www.opennet.ru/opennews/art.shtml?num=56721
As usual with Mozilla, there were bugs. Users of previous version of Firefox that automatically update the list of search engines but have no UI to warn them about the changes got it removed silently.
I personally don't use Yandex, its results for IT-related English language queries have been quite shitty, in all honesty, for many years, most likely because of the supposed full-on focus on keeping the existing (mostly non-English-speaking) users. However, it's another nice example of treating people like swine by those who have even a tiny bit of power over them. Oh, we're used to that, thank you very much.
In 99.9% of cases HN dont accept editorialised headline. Although I have no idea why this current post is also flagged as well. Firefox removed Yandex is a perfectly valid description. May be it should get rid of the latter part.
I've been installing Firefox with useful extensions on all computers of friends and relatives (if only because it's not fucking Google Chrome Cage), and now they got a shovelful of shit straight from Mozilla.
Tomorrow they will disable mouse input, and tell everyone that those who need it should've had a specific rule.
https://lens.google.com/search?p=ASQ0Rg3fjG6zLfDe_EcGm4W9cTi...
Not sure if Google Lens is accessible outside of the app, though.
example here from a letter written by an Estonian elementary school kid
https://lens.google.com/search?p=ASQ0Rg3fjG6zLfDe_EcGm4W9cTi...
You can still access Yandex in Firefox, it just won't show up as a supported provider choice.
I don't think it's a matter of indexes being purged so much as a deliberate crippling of the service to make it less useful to potential bad actors.
Notice, the worse they become the more they will indulge in politics, censorship, emotional blackmail instead of doing their jobs: building a better browser.
That said, I can recognize that developing and maintaining a browser is a massive undertaking while also acknowledging a project taken a turn for the worse. A lot of software these days has weird priorities (most involving cramming more ads in).
And if you apply your logic to chromium. It is being forked and there are many browser like Vivaldi, Brave, Edge etc.. Open Source is definitely not an empty slogan. If there is product A and B, people will choose A if A is better, easier to maintain and popular.
Actually there are some forks (Waterfox, Librewolf, Torfox, etc.), but they are focused on removing anti-features rather than on developing.
I bet this is another move that won't gain them any marketshare either.
It's sad that "at least we're better than Chrome" seems to have become the only real redeeming praise of Firefox/Mozilla, and I think that's exactly what the management at Mozilla and Google realises --- both browsers are heading in the same hostile direction, but as long as FF stays a little behind Chrome, Google can say it's not a monopoly. At this point "browser choice" is clearly more of an illusion than reality. They're all slowly shoving everyone down the same funnel.
It's translation service is by my opinion far better, since I have been able to use it very effectively to converse with anyone around the world in their native tongue. Google... ...
I learned the hard way that google is not that great at translating. It seems good, to those who haven't found out why it's bad.
P.S. I can basically copy and paste a yandex translation for any language. Doing the same with a google translation has gotten me some very confused messages back. Many times. I guess I should be clearer about that.
Look. I just said it was a shame that this all means that we won't be able to use a superior auto-translation product. How is that a problem. It just means someone who can do better than Google would be wise to step up, because someone like me is saying there is a market for a better product than what Google is offering.
That's the thing about sanctions and such. When you take away some things, you gotta try to replace them somehow with something as good or better. And all I am saying is Google ain't it.
Edit: https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/14/dpc-sued-google-rtb-compla...
Here, look. Now yes, that is about the watchdog being sued over not doing their job correctly; but look at who the culprit is and what they were doing. Google. Being naughty, once again.
Neither https://translate.yandex.ru/ nor https://yandex.ru/ are being blocked. You can still use them if you want to (including as a search engine - https://superuser.com/questions/7327/how-to-add-a-custom-sea...). This affects Firefox *defaults* only.
What do you feel when you see things like https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/te6k7b/could_you_a...? (safe to watch; there is no NSF stuff). Do you really believe sanctioning companies that aide the government that does this and worse are not justified or need "replacement"?
Now, for the love of all that is good; stop trying to lecture people on morals when you have no right to.
For instance, ClickHouse is a great opensource database that gives unmatched performance for its kind.
Hope the innocent Russians will be treated well.
They could perhaps get good money, even if considerably less, from DDG.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21363424/mozilla-layoffs-...
edit: Upon more searching, I find passages like this:
>in 2020, Mozilla Corporation’s revenue was $466 million from its search partnerships (largely driven by its search deal with Google), subscriptions and advertising revenue. [0]
as well as a fine from France for 500M Euros.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/13/mozilla-expects-to-generat...
I use Firefox as a daily driver in both desktop and mobile and have zero issues.
Hell, chromium can do everything chrome can.
Maybe they're a monopoly in the online advertising space but I'd argue that's simply because they're better.
Safari is a contender on phones, not so much on desktop.
It's not Google's fault people prefer chrome over safari. The fact that people _can_ choose Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Chromium, Brave, etc. is what matters. As long as Google isn't doing anything anti-competitive, it's absolutely okay to dominate the market with a superior product.
Would love to hear more if anyone has information, I'm possibly misremembering.
Also, private companies are an important part of a nation's economy. Restricting them surely impacts that nation, so the idea seems sound?
As opposed to what Western News Media coverage on the war has turned into, aka, more Propaganda?
The middle ground is not promoting our own Propaganda instead, which is what pushing everyone to Western Search Engines (Agitprop search really).
The other side narrative is, "There has been an active war going on for 5+ years now following a US coup in Ukraine, and many innocent Eastern Ukrainians and ethnic Russians have been killed already. Now, Putin is invading to protect Russia's borders from broken promises over NATO spreading, and the threat of a hostile NATO near Moscow"
Both sides are biased, and both sides are producing agitprop, but we're only limiting one side's access to distribute their worldview.
I never thought I'd type this in my lifetime.
They'll hand-wave criticism by bringing up things like the "slippery slope fallacy." Don't be fooled. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-98-0-1-has-one-big-cha...
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-cris...
I know Russia started war, but it is very difficult to make conclusions at this point, everyone will tell other side "propaganda", "brainwashed"
None pass the test of being open or neutral.
At this rate, your much hated crypto folks may actually start to have a point. Kind of like a lunatic sometimes being accidentally right.
Note the downvotes, for my sin of even mentioning the word "crypto".
You're quite right though that the devil is in the details, and that most of the time, these projects are not immune to politics or ad hoc regulation.
How so?
Could you please elaborate? We already know that Bitcoin and Ethereum are not the only cryptocurrencies that exist for payments and there are better ones that are used for payments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
Here is a story about police rounding up protestors and sending them to jail.
https://news.yahoo.com/police-arrest-dozens-blockading-canad...
> Police chief: “Last night we began to take additional actions towards implementing our operation. We moved officers and equipment into key positions throughout the city and took up 100 checkpoints around the downtown core. We began making arrests of key individuals who were responsible for organizing these unlawful activities. (flash) As of 3pm today we’ve arrested 70 people. They’ve been charged with multiple various offenses including mischief.”
Here is a story about accounts of protestors being frozen, preventing them from paying bail to get out of jail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
> But for one protest organizer who was arrested last week, the effect was more immediate. The organizer, Tamara Lich, said she had been frozen out of all of her accounts and could come up with only 5,000 Canadian dollars for bail.
Who is this "we"? I'm Canadian now, but understanding media bias was something I was taught in American public school, with example from historical American media, and discussions on how bias can be engineered by selective reporting, etc.
> Unfortunately, we can no longer really mock the Russians this way with a straight face, as we have now started to look more like Soviet Russia.
Please feel free to inform the appropriate western authorities that I am guilty of visiting the RT website just now. I'll await the consequences.
that must've been cool, but it was before my time...
Virtually nothing in "user land" is politically neutral but I would think/hope that the underlying technology and protocols have a large degree of neutrality.
Case in point, I'd see something like AWS as a neutral utility, kind of like electricity. You can do lots of bad stuff with electricity but your electricity provider doesn't care.
That idea of separation of concerns is now completely broken down, the entire stack, top to bottom, is political.
In fact, the few times that I've used Yandex were because it is not politically neutral. I was curious whether the results for some queries look different when they're not being filtered through the lens of the American empire. That use case should make Yandex more relevant these days, not less.
(Although, to be honest, the search results were quite boring and normal.)
The search results are mostly affected by the usual blacklists: DMCA notices for pirate sites, right-to-be-forgotten requests, government blocked pages (supposedly based on client location). Note that this list is not complete. For example, western services silently ban sites presumably “used to share child porn, based on informed opinion” of this or that group that might not even have a legal right to force anyone to do anything. How informed is that opinion? If you look at what Russian censorship agency does in the same regard, you can only call them utterly mad. You can be sure it's not the only case when someone has a backdoor that lets them hide stuff “for the public good”. Remember those stories about third world grunts cleaning Facebook from “NSFW content”, and making first world users feel comfy there? The results of their work are probably shared between corporations, too, and applied in some way.
They've been trying to shut down BitTorrent almost two decades, without much failures. They nailed the TPB guys to a cross, but that did all of nothing to actually shut bit-torrent itself down.
Perhaps the lesson is to stop dealing with big tech companies.
Parler hosting on Amazon was an incredibly dumb decision though.
Like the main reason you typically build one is because it's much harder to spy on your users when they're in a browser.
A legit change in some deal does not explain several aspects of this update.
When something doesn't add up, you are supposed to scrutinize it, not just assume it's fine. If it was fine, then why wasn't there an honest explanation?
Mozilla did a bad thing. If our speculations about the why are wrong, it doesn't change anything about what is wrong with this update.
But even the speculation is fair game in this case because the update lacks all the normal and expected justification and explaination of any other merge request. Feel free to explain the above-board reason they made quite this nature of update in quite this peculiar way.
What other updates to your browser should be ok to just take blindly with no explanation? The immagination staggers.
You people seem to be totally brainwashed by corporate bullshit.
That's... not how things work. If you're not happy about something, you should complain about it. That's the only way that people's preferences become known, and changes can be made. If we all constantly hopped from product to product when the product we're currently using does something we didn't like, we'd very quickly run out of options.
All contracts signed with Russians are up for review and likely annulment.
I frankly don't care. I don't use Yandex, but if I did, I'd be really pissed off at this move. Firefox shouldn't be including only search engines that pay a fee; they should be including all search engines that their users might find useful.
Almost all browsers are free. All major and minor ones are free.
Did they? You can still add Yandex back manually (and trivially), it's just not included with the stock install.
There is a reason to think the actual goal of all that radio silence was preventing people from trivially switching to Yandex manually in advance of the change.
It's also in the right click menu for the address bar.
Why does Mozilla need to include Yandex as a default option?
The problem is not inclusion by default, the problem is unwarranted unconditional removal, whether it is default or not, and whether it is needed or not. Mozilla has decided the pretend it happened “by itself”, but it was their decision, and they had an option to switch people to non-sponsored Yandex search.
¹) http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://support.mozilla.org/en-...
Russian civilians should consider themselves lucky that the war is only economic for them.
Probably, yes. That never would have happened, but that would indeed be the logical conclusion. And I'm fine with that.
Trump was for the Iraq war at the time. See https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/fact-check-trump-fal...
Just 6 months before the invasion there is a recording of an interview where he said he was for the war.
> "Are you for invading Iraq?" Howard Stern asked him, and Trump answered, "Yeah, I guess so."
but I'm coming at this from the recent feelings of shame from realizing that what I'm feeling now about my friends and family in Ukraine - while I didn't do anything except speaking out against it when (for instance) the war in Libya broke out - so what moral standing do I have now in asking even those Russians that do NOT have friends and family in Ukraine to potentially wreck their own lives to stop this war ?
Hence (I hope) I'll act more about these issues in the future, and hopefully I'm not the only one.
But I think you already know that and your righteous indignation isn't going to change that. Life is not fair.
The US political system did also make an eventual course correction on Iraq. Eg. Republicans lost the congress in 2006 mostly as a result of that. George W. Bush was term limited out of office. The next proposed unnecessary invasions will probably be greeted by politicians not wanting to repeat Iraq. That is slow progress but it's more than I expect from Putin, with his wars in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Ukraine again, who knows what is next? Not to mention his disrespect of term limits.
And I know lots of Russians against this war. I've been to Russia. My kids are half Russian. I am optimistic for future Russian opportunities to "course correct".
Economic warfare does kill people, but it's kind of foolish to say "just as much" as bullets and bombs. I highly doubt the number of dead Russians from these sanctions is anywhere near the number of dead Ukrainian civilians - will need some serious data to back your claim.
It is not hard to convince me that yes, that should have happened. Where does that lead us? Should I feel different now about this particular agression because there were agressions we did not respond appropriately?
The US should not have invaded Iraq for any reason. I would have supported sanctions against the US for those crimes if any country could afford them.
That said, Saddam Hussein's government is not Zelenskyy's government. They're apples and oranges. Ukraine was a functioning democracy that never antagonized Russia.
The war in Afghanistan is a lot more complicated because it was arguably provoked by 9/11 and they didn't (and don't) really have a functioning central state.
> The entire planet should also be isolating Saudi Arabia for its genocidal war in Yemen?
Yes, absolutely.
> Economic warfare kills people just as much as bullets and bombs.
Speaking only about Russia and Ukraine for the last few weeks: bullshit. Russians aren't having pieces of their loved ones sprayed on them by bombs, watching their cities be destroyed, or leaving their lives behind.
Every death, whether in Russia or out, is the fault of its dictator, Vladimir Putin. He is very popular and probably genuinely won his last few elections. It is perfectly fair to blame the Russian people, even though many are brainwashed.
But even if they were all innocent Putin-haters, this lopsided war (economic on one side, violent on the other) is preferable to an all-out war that would kill far more people.
In no way, shape or form should my following comment be construed as support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and just in case let me clearly state I think the invasion is not right and that I think it will be Putin's downfall, and deservedly so.
That said, that Ukraine was a "functioning democracy" and that it never antagonized Russia are very debatable assertions, to say the least.
Ukraine's democracy wasn't perfect, but elections were successfully rigged at least. It was functional if not necessarily unassailable.
Sanctions cannot stop this war unless they will lead to coup or state collapse (both are unlikely in near future). Sanctions put pressure on Russian elites and together with foreign aid also probably will prevent Russian victory in Ukraine.
I hope that no one is so stupid to resume business with Russia if they end the war quickly. They need to completely change their mindset from imperialism first. Otherwise it is similar to doing business with North Korea.
Do you actually believe this is true? Do you think the sanctions and private boycotts will disappear as soon as Russia negotiated a ceasefire?
Russian has committed the crime and they deserve to pay, and so do their defenders.
What will happen if a significant portion of oil is no longer traded in dollars? The dollars value is supported by the large amount of oil trades, and without it the US can't run the deficits its gotten used to. The US has transferred much of the industrial base to China which makes it hard to recover from that.
> Russian civilians should consider themselves lucky that the war is only economic for them.
Russia is the largest nuclear force in the world, and as Afghanistan and Ukraine shows a conventional war is very resource demanding. If the US went to direct war against russia that would be WWIII, and considering that there are nuclear stakes here that is not a good idea.
The world will not stop isolating Russia while Putin is still in power. And even after he's gone (death from natural causes in 10 to 15 years), it will take another 5 years to partially recover our relationship with the world. The full recovery will never happen.
That'd be a fine choice if it was actually the choice.
Instead you lose Yandex and all the people still die.
I'd much rather have the US heavily-handededly knock down the Russian economy than the alternative of involving itself militarily.
People might say: look how West is behaving, when America invaded other countries or when NATO bombed Yugoslavia no one sanctioned them, but they are doing it to us, they hate us
At the end of the day Ukraine will be in ruins, so sanctions don't help
Is there any evidence this has occurred in the past? Didn't work in Iran, Iraq, North Korea...
Nobody has done anything after the fake bombings before the Cechnya intervention in 1999, which at least is in their own territory. But then again silence in 2008 after the Georgia invasion, and again in Crimea in 2014. They are using their nuclear arsenal as a free pass to invade everyone and break every treaty.
I think it just became unsustainable at this point. And honestly this is the best we can do to help without making things worse.
Removing something from new installs is rather different than removing something from existing installs.
The future of browsers and search engines sure has been a disappointment.
Don't drag politics into your product.
Now it is time to switch. Not sure where to yet, Chrome is not any better, Palemoon is not exactly well supported. Maybe Brave, Vivaldi, or Opera, though they are all Chrome-based as well.
Difficult decision and not very happy about it, as I do think we need more than just one browser engine, but I can't support Mozilla any more.
Because I do not condone that move.
It will be difficult because I have been using Firefox for years and tried to avoid anything Chrome-based and I am not very happy with Google's Manifest v3 approach, but Mozilla just crossed a red line for me.
Thank you for your answer. Could you elaborate on it?
Is it a software freedom question to you? Or perhaps a free speech one?
A browser is a browser. It does not have to promote a moral view. In fact it has to provide ways to find information. Not to limit purposefully ways to find information.
You are somewhat right on a meta level: I think a browser should promote the moral view that it shouldn't promote any moral view in particular.
I do think it would have been _better_ if Firefox made the set of included-by-default search providers something that gets merged into your profile, so that future removals only affect new installations / new profiles (and existing users who happen to use that engine don't have to go out of their way to re-add them after an update). I don't really care _which_ search engine definitions come with a browser out-of-the-box, as long as they're easy to customize.
I would much rather they use their dwindling influence on standards bodies to block and sabotage the changes that necessitate the constant updating (and attendant maintenance burden which takes smaller browser projects out of the running) at every turn; and if it so happens that this results in their influence disappearing even faster and/or them getting booted, then at least this may pave the way for the long-overdue antitrust suit against Google that many have been saying Mozilla's existence serves to prevent.
(It's not like Firefox is developed by unpaid volunteers. Am I using the browser "for free" if Google sees it as advantageous to pay them money for, among others, my continued existence as a user of the browser?)
Similar to duck duck go bangs but it has to be a prefix and ! Isn't required. w => wipedia, y => youtube
Mozilla the company has made some terrible decisions that I strongly disagree with (update page featuring a movie ad, pocket integration, removing a search engine from the defaults, nerfing android addons for no reason)
But compared to every other browser, I don't understand how people think it's even a comparison. Chrome (user history tracking, targeted advertising, FLOC, manifest v3, strong-arming due to market share, etc etc), Edge (same as chrome but replace G with M), and Brave (referral link injection, cryptocoin adware).
To me, no single thing on FF's list is worse than any single thing in the other list. And together it's out of the question which is better.
I don't think it's useful to tell regular people not to use Firefox either unless you tell them they really shouldn't be using the other three (which I doubt many are doing). Am I missing something? Honest question - do you really think the negatives of having someone use not-firefox outweigh the negatives of Firefox?
Mozilla claimed that their mission was to empower users. Some people are more upset by hypocrisy than the actual actions. If they want to change https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/ from "More power to you." to, say, "More power to us." then I'd personally be a lot less irritated at them.
(This isn't specifically a comment on the current subject, BTW; I've been increasingly irritated by Mozilla's hypocrisy for years now.)
This hypocracy+everything I listed about FF+everything else Mozilla has done is a drop in the bucket compared to the user-hostile world that is Edge/Brave/Chrome.
To be clear: I agree with you. I harden Firefox because their defaults do not make me happy. But it's going to take a whole lot more bad decisions before they're worse than their competition.
Though, you are forced to either manually install extensions, or use the chrome store, which will require you to use some google features, but there's no real way around that.
I’ve also moved to brave search recently after DuckDuckGo announced they were downgrading Russian sites. I might try Yandex too as I don’t like the brave search layout.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...
It was founded by Brendan Eich, who also founded Mozilla, but was ousted before all of this weird non-mozilly stuff started happening.
I may need to seek a more "free" alternative
This is hypocrisy of Western democracy. I can't recall when Google was removed after US invaded so many countries. Why do Western companies oppress free speech when it doesn't match their narrative (Julian Assange, now Russian media)?
Why not give Russian "propaganda" tell its narratives and let people decide? Are you afraid of their truth/"truth" or are you afraid people will follow them? If you think people are stupid to decide, why do you allow them to even vote for a President of a country?
Why US thinks it is ok to expand NATO to the borders of Russia, but didn't think Soviet military in Cuba is ok?
Where are all liberals fighting for human rights and free speech?
* US invasion - good guys killing bad guys
* Russian invasion - bad guys killing good guys
* China human right violations - "west" only condemns, because we are too much dependent on cheap products.
* US tells Iraq has biological weapons - yeah let's start the war.
* Russia tells Ukraine has biological weapons - yeah, propaganda as usual.
I have so many questions, but pretty sure no one is going to answer them constructively thanks to cancel culture (and the reason for throw away account) where "liberals" cancel you if they don't agree with you, responses I might get "whataboutism"
I am anti-war in all countries, because at the end of the day ordinary people suffer. But why people are demanding protests from Russian people to overthrow Putin (which I doubt they can, unless their military people decide to support) when they weren't able to stop war in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other US invaded country by protesting? Do you think you have moral rights to ask Russian people to do something when you were silent, when you couldn't even save Julian Assange? (by the way I am not Russian)
Stop pretending you are right!
Give other side chance to speak!
As a long time Firefox user, this saddens me!
However, the alternative to throwing everything non-violent at Russia, is actual military intervention. Essentially, very high risk of real WW3.
The Iraq invasion was a huge mistake. Russia's invading Ukraine is a huge mistake. Generally, war is a huge mistake.
If there is anything non-violent left to try, I can't blame anybody for trying that. This is one tiny, tiny small thing.
100% agree with you! Now our politicians made this mess, we shouldn't make it even messier by making people suffer
The US being less likely to do things like, you know, lie about biological weapons as a pretense for an invasion of a country that murders tens to hundreds of thousands of innocents and destabilizes an already not-so-stable part of the world would be a good thing. That the rest of the world wasn't able to rally together at the time to say "Yo, not cool" doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been right to. That it didn't happen then doesn't mean it shouldn't happen next time. Or now, in the case of Russia re: Ukraine.
I am not saying this, I am saying we shouldn't be politicizing software and punish ordinary people. I know Ukrainians are suffering and suffering of Russians at this moment is very small compared to them, but this doesn't mean we should make them suffer even more. Do you think Russians will like these actions? No, I think their hate will increase and they would support Putin even more.
> That it didn't happen then doesn't mean it shouldn't happen next time. Or now, in the case of Russia re: Ukraine.
Somehow I am pretty sure if US invades any other country now, there would be another excuse and no sanctions at all. I don't hold knowledge of the future, but past events are super clear what would happen. Iraq, Libya, ....
Also why not same support for Palestinian people? do you think they are terrorists? I mean 100% of them? Do you think Palestine has power to withstand Israeli attacks or similar military capacity? Why West not sanctioning Israel, which is happening now?
Not saying we shouldn't support Ukraine, what I am saying is we should equally support everyone who is suffering. And we shouldn't make people suffer even more.
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Are they blocking users from going to those sites? No. Are they preventing those sites from loading in the browser? No. Are they stopping anyone from creating a website and saying whatever they want? No.
Just because you don't agree with Mozilla on this action doesn't make it oppression of free speech. This is simply one organization deciding not to have a relationship with another organization. Not everything is an attack on free speech or expression.
Because similar action wasn't taken against Google when US invaded so many countries!
> Just because you don't agree with Mozilla on this action doesn't make it oppression of free speech. This is simply one organization deciding not to have a relationship with another organization.
In this case taking away choice from Russians not from organization. Of course they are going to use just website, but still there is clear signal to selectively support one side, even though action of other parties were equally bad. Why open source software is making decisions based on politics happening around.
> "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
This is explicitly Mozilla retaliating against Yandex for things they've said.
> Are they blocking users from going to those sites? No. Are they preventing those sites from loading in the browser? No. Are they stopping anyone from creating a website and saying whatever they want? No.
This is disingenuous. They're very deliberately making it less convenient for users to access Yandex.
Everyone: *gasps*
Mozilla: *changes the user's search engine*
Everyone: *claps*
IMHO: messing with the user's settings (especially without a proper warning and a cause) should not be condoned.
How can any Firefox user feel safe that they won't be on the wrong side of the next current thing?
I’ve been saying it, and I’ll repeat it again. Since when did liberals lose the ideology of free thinking and speech and go on a quest of cancel everything that may not fit squarely and neatly in their world. It wreaks of elitism.
The intelligence of the people is the security of the nation. --Daniel Webster
Then find a developer and ask them if they take direct donations.
They're (the execs) utter failures.
Firefox, at least where I am in the US, also doesn't list Baidu as a possible search engine. If Firefox had decided to remove Google from this list because of privacy issues, HN would be cheering loudest.
Firefox development itself has been rudderless and lethargic for a long time. WebKit introduced backdrop filters 7 years ago and Firefox is still working on implementing them. [1]
I don't think that's a particularly high standard. The CEO is a failure and the board is incompetent for not firing her years ago.
[1] https://webkit.org/blog/3632/introducing-backdrop-filters/
And when executive salaries were rising and user share dropping, revenues were way up. From $120 million in 2010 to $520 million in 2016. Of course some of that will go to the people in charge.
Most of their non-Firefox pet projects have been failures.
Implying she joined in December 2019 is seriously underplaying her role before then. [1]
Her accomplishments as CEO are tanking growth, a slew of failed projects, massive layoffs and the expansion of obnoxious full-page banner ads baked into the browser.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Mozilla_Foundat...
Except yknow, 2016 where the majority of their money came from Yahoo. Because that money is buying something of value, Google is just the company that most wants the product.
>Implying she joined in December 2019 is seriously underplaying her role before then.
She became provisional CEO in 2019, like I said. And I'd have to guess she was officially hired as nobody better wanted the job for the salary.
In every single thread it's the same stuff rehashed over and over, and dramatic takes about absolutely trivial changes or people being mad over Mozilla political stuff like them canning a former CEO (which was totally deserved). Very rarely do I ever see a positive comment or thread title, and most of the problems people bring up are basically non-issues for 99% of users or completely made up. There are of course some legitimate issues here and there, but they are the exception.
Every time I open these threads it's pretty confusing, I don't know if I am living in a different reality or what's up. I have had zero issues with Firefox in any way and have no complaints about the direction it's moving in. It has the best Wayland support, has great performance, now isolates each site in an OS level process (which further improves performance on modern machines), gets rapid security updates and builds in 1/4th the time and space that chromium takes. I don't notice anything missing compared to using chromium either.
Them removing Yandex from the default search engine options is barely news worthy. Users who want to use it still can, users who don't will continue not to, there is no real issue here.
As a user of Firefox, I just want them to make a better browser both on the desktop and mobile. Mozilla wants to find ways to make more revenue.
When you are the one to do the inquisition, you are expected to be held to the higher if not the same standard.
If we are going to permit US govt Agitprop, maybe we should permit historicals, and their Agitprop as well.
Surely they should have removed Google search by now and replaced it with a privacy friendly alternative since Google has been known to be involved with mass surveillance and having contracts and actively working with the three-letter agencies and simply handing over your data to them? Once again, they still can’t move on from Google nor can they get rid of them since they are on life support with their money.
Firefox is compromised, even with DuckDuckGo. Might as well switch to Brave Browser and use Brave Search.