I'm not sure about that. I think there's plenty of people who shit on Firefox to justify to their own ethical standards their preference for some Chromium-based browser.

▲

kraken_cult 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm failing to parse the "own ethical standards" as it relates to chromium-based browsers and this conversation about firefox..can you maybe explain, does removing the ability for users to block adds seem more ethical than not?

	▲	culi 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Using Chromium-based browsers means you give Google, the surveillance company that works with ICE and the military, more power over the web to do stuff like push Manifest V2. Everyone has their own ethical standards around this but I think Firefox is clearly seen as the browser to use if you care about the open-web. A lot of people therefore feel the need to defend their preference for a Chromium-based browser. IMO that obfuscates the fact that even non-Chrome Chromium based browsers still affords Google massive influence over the future of the web.
	▲	yndoendo 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		People often will tell lies to themselves and other to support their personal ideology. Product A is bad and so is product B. So why should I move from A to B? They are try to rationalize their belief system versus looking at realty. Reality is that non-tech people to know what surfing the web is like with Ad-Block vs non-Ad-Block browsing. Once you teach some one it becomes night and day. Without teaching someone very few people will step out of their comfort-zone to self educate.
	▲	nine_k 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Is this being done for the benefit of the users? The question applies to many decisions in Chrome. It's the ethical side of the maker. Is letting Firefox slip into irrelevance (by not using it) in the interest of the users, writ large? What developments should we expect if this happens? This is the ethical side of the user.

▲

autoexec 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've seen people complain about Firefox in terms of performance and compatibility to justify using Chrome, but there aren't many chromium-based browsers appealing to those with ethical standards to choose from. Ecosia maybe? Ultimately is seems to come down to choosing your moral compromises more than anything.

	▲	pmontra 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Firefox performances have been good for so many years that I can't remember when it was the last time that I felt it to be slow. I only remember that Chrome used to be faster than FF (mainly the JS engine) and then it wasn't. Maybe it loses every single benchmark, I didn't check, but it is fast enough to be my primary browser, the one I use when I work as web developer and also when I'm not working. I run FF on a 2014 Debian laptop. Windows and Mac, who knows. About compatibility, there are some odd sites that use a Chrome only API or something that FF didn't implement. They are really rare but people that must use one of them to do their job don't have a choice. Then I intentionally break every single site by using privacy add-ons like uBO, uMatrix, PrivacyBadger etc so sometimes I have to play with them and find a configuration that lets me use a site. In the case of uMatrix it usually means finding the minimum set of scripts that enables enough functionality leaving out all the 3rd party tracking and then saving it. When it's too complicated and I will not use that site again but I must use it, I either disable every add-on on that site or I run Chrome. Finally, I run integration tests with a headless Chrome, but I develop with FF. If it works with FF it works with Chrome and Safari too. BTW, I use FF on Android as my primary browser too.