And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.

  •  Engywuck   ( @Engywuck@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Obligatory use Firefox

    No way. Why should I feel obligated to use something I feel has inferior UX and UI than the browser I’m using now? For Mozilla’s CEO to rais her wage (again): https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html ?

    You people are really delusional if you really think that Mozilla are the only good guys (or good guys at all, for that matters).

    Inb4, unimaginative people downvoting just because they can’t stand different opinions.

    •  mrmanager   ( @mrmanager@lemmy.today ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is a huge difference between mozilla and google. That’s quite obvious to most. The ceo raising his salary is a problem for you, and you prefer Google, where they have enormous salaries and incomes? It’s one of the richest companies in the world.

      Firefox doesn’t have inferior UX at all. It has more functions and features than chrome. It also has very good default privacy and the plugin system is amazing.

      And it just became faster than chrome as well.

    • I feel obligated to raise awareness about these topics. I won’t prevent anyone from choosing Chrome, but at the very least it’s important for people to know what their choice can entail, and base their decision on that.

      • I won’t prevent anyone from using FF, either. I just think that the “obligatory use Firefox” is quite arrogant, to say the least. And, to be honest, I’m quite happy it’s not going to happen until FF is managed by Mozilla and their poor choices.

        • The obligatory use Firefox has been a running gag in the FOSS community for ages now. Nothing arrogant about it, though it does come across as a bit blunt and brazen, to be fair.

          It’s just that letting a single entity be the ultimate authority on how the internet (or anything, for that matter) should look like is objectively a bad idea.

          Especially when that entity is widely known for being insidiously self serving, malicious and manipulative.

          That being said, enough people have explained this already, so I’m gonna leave it there.

          Have a nice day