And they'll kill all of us, including themselves, in the process.
uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
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.
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.
Or they just keep making it harder and harder to use alternative browsers that support 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.
You make a good case to use Firefox.
Still not a case against Firefox; just pointing out there's more to the picture.
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.
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.
So, no: Firefox will NOT save you.
Chrome is built to serve Google's interests, which is exactly as you'd expect.
Use Firefox for a web which better balances the competing interests of corporations and end users.
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.
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.
So don't do that.
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.
https://www.bankofamerica.com/information/supported-browsers...
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.
The situation in the example you cited has improved. You're undermining your own position.
Use Firefox and be happy.
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.
Edit: an example is Windows 11 requiring new enough processors for security reasons even though it would run on older PCs.
but policy decisions aren't like technical ones.... principles are at play at every layer above the strictly-technical discussion
One could argue that Google can "kill" Mozilla easier than it can "kill" uBlock.
there are things that through symbolism come to signify life-or-death scenario across different contexts (i.e. life or dead of what-exactly?)
these "ad-tech" wars aren't about technology as much as they (really) are about (the future?) of user freedom.
freedom is the key word (symbol) which links this difficult real world contest into the nuclear leagues