Also makes me wonder what other shady connections fellow services might have, waiting to be uncovered. Looking at you, popular podcast sponsor, DeleteMe!
This is why it's so important to require disclosure of beneficial owners for all companies. The world is filled with people that will poison you just so they can sell you an antidote, or, better yet, life long treatment.
https://builders.mozilla.community/ https://builders.mozilla.community/old/alumni.html
With respect to Kanary, I have my entire family the platform and it's drastically reduced the amount of garbage (figurative) that comes through our door. Needed help with something non-standard the CEO personally took care of things while learning more about our specific use case.
People complain about the Google search deal and I get why, but I've been using the browser since back when it was called Phoenix, and at this point I'm pretty sure the Google deal is the only reason it's still alive. The engineering is still solid; its stewardship seems anything but.
What did it take for them to uncover it?
Generally speaking, GMU grad students may have have more time and plenty of expertise. When those grad students leave school and get jobs at Mozilla, they may be too busy to go down rabbit holes looking for long shots.
Kinda like partnering with Google while promoting Firefox as the "privacy browser".
Don't you mean on your, the user's, privacy?
What specifically did this influence, or is likely to be influenced? What specifically is made worse by this?
There's always these vague accusations, but never any specifics.
Details are readily available if you know how to search.
These are just more vague accusations, and just as unencumbered by any evidence as your previous vague accusations were.
You are not engaging with anything I said. I asked for evidence of Google's control over Firefox beyond "they have a search engine deal", and you seem unwilling or unable to provide it. Therefore I can only assume it does not exist and are simply making spurious claims for which no evidence exists.
The lack of default privacy and ad blocking in Firefox is the evidence.
The fact that Google continues to pay even as Firefox marketshare shrinks to irrelevance is evidence.
The more pertinent question for potential users is evidence that it does not influence tbem. By any reasonable measure, default Firefox is not "the privacy browser".
In this case why does the browser have a pop-up blocker? Or why does it warn about potentially malicious websites (via SafeBrowsing)?
If it's not their job to curate what you see then it should show you the raw unfiltered badness of the web and let you deal with it yourself.
Hey your email provider also shouldn't do curation either, then why does it have a spam filter?!?! Checkmate atheists!
Ad blockers just use a list of known malicious URLs/domains/CSS selectors and use that to block/hide elements.
This is identical to Safe Browsing (preventing loading of known malicious domains) which you seem to be fine with and don't see as "curation".