The only mainstream browser left that can still run the full version of uBlock Origin is Firefox.
All the others have the same limitations imposed by Manifest V3.
In Chrome/Chromium, Manifest v3 largely replaces extension-controlled network blocking with a more restrictive «declarativeNetRequest», whereas Firefox, by contrast, has deliberately kept support for blocking «webRequest» functionality.
Importantly, the full uBlock Origin is a Manifest V2 extension. The Manifest v3-compatible version is uBlock Origin Lite, which has fewer capabilities.
[0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-f...
[2] https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-wi...
[3] https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-sell...
For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.
I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind
I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best
[0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
but since we're a long ways from that reality, the least we can do is to look for accountability from influential people with the same strictness we have for the poorest and least powerful
That said I do think the uproar was mostly justified. Mozilla is a very progressive organisation and the foundation is basically an NGO. The CEO should fully stand behind its values. At many companies these things aren't core values but at Mozilla they are.
They're not just an employee, they're a figurehead. It's part of the job. Nobody complains if an individual contributor is doing something like this.
And really, if a CEO at a conservative company or foundation would go and join the pride parade I'm sure they would find themselves in trouble too.
I'm a Firefox user.
Depending on money from Google is worse than the aggregate of Brave behavior, for me.
I guess you could allow an alternate newer safari, but the one that comes with the OS would have to be linked into the blob.
You could say that iphone is an anti-monopoly option vs android, but not that Safari is an anti-monopoly option vs Chrome.
Then on top of that, even for users that do happen to "live in Canada"(1) already, Safari isn't a choice, it's the only allowed option, and full octane firefox is also not available as a choice. (firfox as a front-end to safari is essentially meaningless)
(1) saying "you can use Safari, because you can switch to iphone" is the same as saying you can have something, just move to Canada", ie, invalid and likely disingenuous, because likely the speaker understood that perfectly well.
So, yeah "let's be real" indeed. There is no way to paint Safari as any sort of anti-monopoly.
That’s why I was kinda trying to say it is anti-monopoly monopoly.
If Apple supported read+execute pages for third party applications, it might give users more choice but it would also have the consequence of ushering in the way for total browser domination by chromium. I’d argue that is an even worse scenario as far as monopoly is concerned.