Hacker News Reader

Comment by _g0xr | Hacker News Reader

They literally didn't deny that. They made a separate point you appear not to have actually read.

Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2.

And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google.

I hope Ladybird does well, too.

View on HN

Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent.

> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.

This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?

> And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil.

I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet).

FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom.

> Do we trust them or don't we?

GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves.

Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own.

That was a rhetorical question.

Mozilla have given us plenty of reasons to not trust them, which makes it hilarious that anybody would think it's noteworthy they're reviewing the code of Raymond Hill of all people.

We could tell it was rhetorical, to imply the position was ridiculous. But when accepting nuance there is a real answer.

> Raymond Hill of all people.

As good as he's been, he's still just one person with a hobby project. Yes please review it!

And what if he gets hacked?

>> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either.

> This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we?

Are you joking? You brought the claim to the table, and now that people see the flaws in it you deny them talking about it? You're some mental gymnast..

Looks like you took a rhetorical question literally. See my other comments if you're confused.

I saw your other comments, and you might be the one who is confused.

Very convincing argument you have there.

Just used your style to defeat you. Easy mode

You've yet to say anything of substance. Why are you even on HN?

More substance than you

Reply on news.ycombinator.com