Mozilla it is not same like before, Mozilla now work for Google which is enabling privacy holes.
Gross. Thanks for the heads up on that. I hear Mozilla is all woke and crazy now too.
Everything just gets worse.
2 Likes
Only if you do nothing about it.
Don’t believe everything you hear. Remember to ask questions and be skeptical.
Google and Mozilla are separate entities. Not only that, but “Mozilla” is really two entities. There is “Mozilla Foundation” (a non-profit corporation) which wholly owns “Mozilla Corporation” (the for-profit company that creates Firefox). The only connection is that Google accounts for approximately 80% of Mozilla’s revenue. That funding is payment for Google being the default search engine on Firefox. If anyone says that Mozilla is enabling privacy holes, it might be best to ask for details — I’m not aware of any.
2 Likes
And, specifically, ask to be directed to one or both of the following:
- blackbox code within Firefox
- open source code within Firefox that is a privacy hole.
If anyone wants to go on with this, please fork it to Round Table.
2 Likes
Please stay to discuss Software and Hardware only. Do Not Be Evil.
1 Like
Discourse should be fixed … really … It’s always broken when someone shared a media that is blocked by NoScript … Discourse (and no other page) reverses the order of elements, so that overlays are not usable anymore (like quote-button). So I cannot quote what I want to answer here.
But I want to answer about screen scale that is always 200% after restarting phone. The solution is here.
About Firefox:
It’s not as bad as carlosgonz tells you. Google is paying much money to Mozilla for putting Google search engine as default. What else Mozilla does for that reason is speculative. Google is doing so to avoid antitrust actions I guess. And I also read on Git that Mozilla and Community are not doing everything what Google wants to get. For example there is a method on Chrome to get access to hardware memory (for example to write keybinds into your mouse or keyboard). Google wants that feature in Firefox, too. Mozilla does not implement this for security reasons.
It’s not a good idea to oversimplify things. That Google pays much money to Mozilla is a bad thing. It gives Google power that they shouldn’t have. Mozilla may does actions to create privacy holes because of Google, but maybe they also would do it without Google - who knows. But that doesn’t mean that Mozilla is now working for Google. They still can decide in another way as my example shows.
5 Likes
I’m curious why @carlosgonz doesn’t defend his statement by showing exactly where Firefox “is enabling privacy holes”. You made that statement. Where is your evidence? The code is Free and until you show exactly where that is done, I’ll assume you’re trolling.
Trolling is against the forum rules.
2 Likes
Except for the bits that aren’t, like Widevine. Personally, I just say “no” - and accept that some web sites will not play video content on my computer.
Edit: As a corollary to that, if you enable Widevine within Firefox then you have exactly no idea whether you have privacy or not, whether you have security or not - since you are running blackbox code (a blob).
6 Likes
I think he is also speaking about those defaults that do not respect privacy of users. That does not mean we cannot change it, but defaults have much power (especially for those who do not know).
4 Likes
I do not need to defend as it is visible for everyone how bad it is Firefox. There are many Evils things from Firefox, one obvious bad it is the default Google search acceptance, Firefox URL-Search it is hardcoded to Google Search engine, Firefox anti-tracker it is disabled by default…,…,…
1 Like
Firefox ESR is good, Mozilla is not.
1 Like
So you’re saying it is “Evil” because you have a different preference for some setting defaults??? Everything you mentioned can be changed by changing the default settings. Unbelievable.
1 Like
URL_Search engine can not be changed by user anymore.
On a Gnu System like PureOS it endorsed by FSF this type of behavior is not accepted and is considered strictly Evil. However on Linux system Opensources like Android, Fedora, LinuxMint, Ubuntu this type of behavior could be OK.
1 Like
I think you do need to provide evidence to support your assertions.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
In my address bar it says “Search with Wikipedia or enter address”. So it is my assumption that I have correctly reconfigured the default search engine (which may well be Google out-of-the-box).
I can remove Google as a search provider (and I have done that) so that it is not offered on or selectable on the search bar and is no longer available on the address bar (which by definition I would have to request by prefixing the string in the address bar with @google since Google is not the default - but now that just gives a syntax error because Google has been removed).
6 Likes
I think we all, and Purism, and Google, understand the power of defaults. Defaults matter.
7 Likes
That made the code difficult to remove the dependency on the Google search engine from the URL Search.
This depends on which version of Firefox are using, what i talk about it implemented recently.
1 Like
OK, so what version of Firefox are you talking about?
1 Like
Firefox v128+
1 Like
OK, but I’m running Firefox 131. And it let me avoid Google as the default search engine provider and it then let me remove Google as a search engine provider (so that accidents are not even possible).
If Google / Firefox were truly evil and all of the above is just theatre (e.g. a search pretends to go via Wikipedia or Bing, but actually just goes to Google) then eventually I would notice it in my DNS logs (and, sure, I understand that if they were truly truly evil, they could bypass my DNS server without telling me).
2 Likes