← Back to context

Comment by viraptor

5 years ago

That would give the browser owners control over ad blocking behaviours, while they rely on funding from companies which sell ads. That's not a great situation for the users. The authors providing an unopinionated API for plugins is much safer.

You're absolutely right. Though the problem is the conflict of interest, not the idea that these things should be browser features.

The truth is everyone trusta these particular extensions and so they should have more privileges and deeper integration. For example, Google's new extension APIs actually make a lot of sense: they allow extensions to do useful things without actually looking at user data. This is a big improvement and it should be imposed on all extensions on their store. It's just that uBlock Origin is so important that it shouldn't be subjected to these limitations. That's why I say it might as well become a browser feature.

Indeed, it also raises the question: Why do we pay for something like MS Office but not for a browser?

I think I'd pay 50/year or so for Firefox.. Even if Chrome is free. In fact I already donate about half that. But the point of course is getting a lot of people to do that so they can achieve independence from Google.

  • I wouldn't pay for a browser, they all track me, or try to, and experiment on me, and extract personally identifiable information which I am told is "anonymized" but you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that.

    I'm already paying with all the data Mozilla and Google extract from me. In fact, they should pay me. I haven't asked for or wanted any of the new browser features which have appeared since, say, 2001. They all serve somebody else, not me.

  • I am also actively looking for a way to fund Firefox.

    I have donated to the servo project under the Linux Foundation and I'll possibly pay for Firefox VPN when it becomes available if I know the money goes into the corporation and not the foundation (yep, weird, but the corporation is where the browser gets developed. And money only goes from the corporation to the foundation, so if I want to support the development of the browser I guess that's how it has to be.)

  • but if they are already taking money from Google, why should I donate to Firefox?

    IMO companies that aren't getting direct money from ad businesses deserve my donations more.

    There's no guarantee that reaching independence from Google will stop Firefox from getting Google money, disabling features that made Firefox different or cutting jobs.

    • Most of their revenue comes from Google (for providing it as the default search engine in the browser) because they can't get enough revenue from donations to pay for their work. If they got enough money from donations, they wouldn't need to rely on Google's spare change.

      3 replies →

Or they can just cripple the APIs so extensions don’t work as effectively anymore. Kind of what happened in practice with Safari (although this was not malicious).

> That would give the browser owners control over ad blocking behaviours, while they rely on funding from companies which sell ads.

Then they have a shit business model and should fold.

Stop making shitty excuses for bad behavior.

Technology should enhance the human experience, not enslave it.