The rhetoric around Firefox is so exhausting. They change some wording while having made no actual technical changes to the browser and the internet is on fire for days calling them the devil incarnate, meanwhile Chrome gutted uBlock and other extensions a week ago and there was barely any noise about it.

What causes this phenomenon where the project with significantly less resources is held to a higher standard than the other players?

From long experience we expect Google and hence Chrome to act against our interests. We have not expected that of Mozilla and Firefox.

Google did give us a lot of warning that they would greatly restrict ad-blocking and tracker-blocking, so most of that angst has already been and gone.

But firefox always was a monopoly figleave sockpuppet - and now they do not need it anymore, so firefox either finds a new purpose (doing what it promised) or it tries to sell out in one final scam.

> From long experience we expect Google and hence Chrome to act against our interests. We have not expected that of Mozilla and Firefox.

HN used to gush over how great Chrome was. Some of us were saying, um guys, you know google is in the business of selling advertising right? Nobody seemed to care. Now mozilla's lawyers have them change some legalese and they are instantly the bad guys.

> meanwhile Chrome gutted uBlock and other extensions a week ago and there was barely any noise about it

Because anyone who cared knew this was coming in the near future after they published manifest v3 several years ago. Back then there was a huge kerfuffle, but since then anyone who cared has moved on.

Well, no one (sane) has any illusions left about chrome.

But FF was supposed to remain the shiny counterexample (despite acting also shady since years).

It is still the least worse option. These posts like OP is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

OP's premise is that "Firefox is gone" and "Chrome is the only option". That suggests Chrome is better than current Firefox.

Personally, even though my trust in Firefox (and especially Mozilla) has been eroding rapidly in recent years, it's still so much greater than what I have for Google and Chrome that it's not even a choice.

Therefore, I agree with GP that this rhetoric is exhausting.

Bringing up the issues with FF and Mozilla is important and deserves attention. This kind of misleading FUD is not and does not.

> OP's premise is that "Firefox is gone" and "Chrome is the only option". That suggests Chrome is better than current Firefox.

To be fair, OP asked if "Chrome-ish" is the only option, i.e. Chromium-based browsers - not Chrome itself.

Even so, I don't think the implication is that Chromium is better than Firefox, but that without Firefox only Chromium-based browsers remain. "If I don't want to use Firefox, is it really only Chrome-clones available?"

Chrome is better than current Firefox. Chrome does not require users to grant Google a license to the information they enter online.

> What causes this phenomenon where the project with significantly less resources is held to a higher standard than the other players?

Hm, my lived experience is the inverse, and both seem sort of important to talk about.

We've been hearing about Chrome implementing the same privacy protections as Safari as a transgression for years, years, and years, as it was delayed again and again.

It was ex-Mozilla people who brought to my attention that they were deeply alarmed by the privacy-concious-Do-Not-Track people making this pivot and that it was a really bad sign.

Generally, I try to avoid loaded questions phrased like "why is X considered as A while Y is considered as B?" because it suffers from high failure rates

(likelihood you're the first person to realize the truth; likelihood these things ended up sorted neatly into opposing binaries; undecidability of 'how come everyone believes the wrong thing?'; uncomfortable conversation when someone starts from 'how come everyone believes the wrong thing?' and you have to sort of lead them gently to 'is it possible you are missing something, not everyone else?' without making it obvious)

> We've been hearing about Chrome implementing the same privacy protections as Safari as a transgression for years, years, and years, as it was delayed again and again.

Well Apple didn’t turn around and try to push the Topics API..

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Topics_API

(Just to be clear. Mozilla is opposed to it too. They are just documenting it and don’t plan to implement the API)

To be clear, I don't think trying to score or rank browser manufacturers on Goodness is an achievable goal. Endless what-abouts are available, with rational arguments available to opposing opinions.

However, I must admit I am intrigued by seeing Topics posited as a stain.

I strongly believe we would have been obviously better off as consumers with topics, than the status quo, a wild west of tracking, but AFAIK, weakly, it could have entrenched incumbents further.*

Selfishly, for my individual interests, I wish Apple had proposed it.

I have a feeling it would have been more dogged in working through it, rather than Google's laissez-faire "oh well! guess we get to keep tracking" when the bottom feeders complained.**

That's probably why it seems unachievable to me to rank on Goodness, opinions abound and they're all reasonable.

* i.e. even if the topics are retrievable via JS by any page, I'd assume there's some clever way for Google to do something strictly superior from an advertiser perspective leveraging some E2E integration, ex. perhaps most pages have to wait till load to get topics, but Google can do a special preflight request given a special HEAD tag, idk

** My weak understanding is this essentially was put on pause/shit-canned after UK competition authorities relayed general concern, and I don't remember Google giving up so easily on anything ever

I’m opposed to any advertising on the web. Not because of ideology. It just makes the web worse especially on mobile.

Despite the outcry of manifest v3, if I understand it correctly it’s a standardize version of how Apple implements content blocking on the web, similar functionality works well in Safari.

When Firefox removed Do Not Track in December last year [0] people also freaked out, which came as a considerable surprise to me; I thought most tech-savvy users were well aware of the flaws with DNT, and were well aware of DNT's newfangled replacement (GPC) that Firefox had already adopted [1].

I will never understand why people attack Firefox so eagerly at every given opportunity.

[0]: https://circuitbulletin.com/what-is-global-privacy-control-t... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/global-privacy-control

>there was barely any noise about it.

10 posts daily about it on HN.

>The rhetoric around Firefox is so exhausting. They change some wording while having made no actual technical changes to the browser and the internet is on fire for days calling them the devil incarnate

Having worked there, it's concerning, since if you saw the discussions that go on with regard to user data, you'd know they are trying to make sure they word things correctly, not... insert weasel words to grab your data.

> meanwhile Chrome gutted uBlock and other extensions a week ago and there was barely any noise about it.

At this writing, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43322922 has 962 points and 485 comments, and is the latest in a long line of posts. What are you on about?

> What causes this phenomenon where the project with significantly less resources is held to a higher standard than the other players?

There is the thing where Mozilla explicitly claimed to uphold a higher standard.

>What causes this phenomenon where the project with significantly less resources is held to a higher standard than the other players?

It's not the resources. It's their holier than thou attitude.

It’s a bit premature to say Mozilla’s change to user agreements should result in a loss of our trust.

Particularly given the browser itself is open source and already has many eyes on it.

I’m going to wait and see what Mozilla’s next few releases are like before passing judgement.

One thing that bothers me is that, when smaller projects and companies get boycotted, the winners seem to always be US Big Tech companies that are far worse, and boycotts don't work against them either.

For what is worth, I still use Firefox.

If you fear Mozilla's telemetry going forward, you could pick a fork that disables it. E.g., Mullvad or Zen seem pretty good.

But on the other hand, if you really want to get off the Firefox bandwagon, yes, Chromium-based browsers are a viable alternative. Although, in my view, there are only 2 Chromium-based browsers that are fairly trustworthy (i.e., well updated, not insecure) and that are not full-on spyware: Vivaldi and Brave.

Regardless, the “forks” are good only for disabling features that you don't want. But keep in mind that the hard work is still done by Mozilla, Google or Apple, it costs a shit ton of money to maintain a browser engine and all of them are financed by ad-tech (Google's ad-tech to be more specific).

You can trust or distrust whoever you want, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Firefox. They now have updated the wording of their TOS that caused so much uproar and confusion (in part fueled by Brendan Eich, who runs a competing browser) and are pretty clear about what they do.

Firefox also still supports Manifest V2, which lets you use the full, ultra-powerful version of uBlock Origin. There's no better privacy protection than uBlock.

Firefox is a much better choice than any Chromium based browser for the privacy conscious.

> in part fueled by Brendan Eich

I don't get why you needed to mention this, when the story became viral before Brendan Eich communicated it.

Do you feel that people misunderstood that, in fact, Mozilla does intend to sell user data?

Note that I'm still using and advocating for Firefox, I just found this offtopic attack odd.

I thought his attack on Firefox was a little unbecoming, while also forgetting to mention that he's a competitor (and his product is not free).

Mozilla is apparently run by corporate drones who made a blunder (as drones do). It happens. They corrected it. No need to attack or dismiss Firefox in general. Firefox is excellent.

Your attacking me on false grounds as if doing so defends what Mozilla did is the only unbecoming thing I can see here.

I'm a founder of Mozilla (not latecomer or looter). The McKinseyites now running it into the ground deserve criticism from me as well as others who see what is going on. If you don't want to see it, keep using Firefox. Their terms and privacy policy changes still stink, they are integrating Anonym, and they're turning things on by default that we at Brave do not.

Try engaging with the substance of the arguments, not attacking the person making them.

> They corrected it.

Well, if by "corrected" you mean "acknowledged that the public perception of the change was correct", then I agree.

That said, I agree that Firefox is still the least worst option.

No, they didn't update anything meaningful.

Chrome was NEVER (and won't be ever) the option.. https://contrachrome.com/

you can't be serious, surely?

yes, mozilla's TOS update is a bad thing, but switching to chrome (or chromium-based) for it is really cutting your nose to spite your face.

> you can't be serious, surely?

Probably rage-bait.

It's funny how Mozilla is being vilified non-stop this past week when nothing's really changed (only their legal wording). Whereas Google are literally personal information vampires; they make the web a worse place for people and their freedoms.

I will continue supporting Mozilla and using Firefox.

You may have missed Mozilla's update: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms..., discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612

I don't think trust in Firefox should be gone.

There is nothing meaningful in this "update."

If anything, it's worse, in that they EXPLICITLY admit that they are getting kickbacks—“'monetary' or 'other valuable consideration'”—for providing your user information.

I think it's great that we're able to hold mozilla to higher standards than google, but I think there's a couple important points to mention:

- Leaving firefox for chrome due to privacy concerns only makes sense if chrome has better privacy, which it definitely doesn't. Recent changes might bring them closer together, but firefox is very far from catching up.

- We should compare firefox to chrome or firefox-based to chromium-based. Browsers like waterfox, pale moon, edge, brave all use source code from one browser but with different privacy, so it doesn't make sense to say "I don't like firefox so I'll use a chromium based one".

- Bonus extra point just because this is hacker news, check out Ladybird, it's making awesome progress!

Yeah: firefox.

Is the browser ecosystem supposed to get better if we collapse it to just webkit and blink? Websites track us, browsers track us, web extensions track us, ISPs track us, OSs track us, cell networks track us.

Government passing legit privacy laws is the literal only way to prevent this - not browser choice. Unfortunately gov is fully captured by corporate interests most places in the world.

I have a few notes on alternative browsers at the bottom of this article that might be of use. https://vale.rocks/posts/everything-is-chrome#taking-action

As a privacy conscious user I'm surprised you consider anything other than firefox. Is is not confusing.

I have been out of the loop, what happened with Firefox?

added new terms of use which are very questionable: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi...

I think the conclusion was that they had to remove that for legal reasons, since technically they were already doing something that could be considered selling data.

They have never clarified what they're doing that is not really selling data but legally "could be considered selling data". I understand that's how they tried to spin it, there's a very telling update[1] written two days later:

 The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” 

That California definition is pretty much the most straightforward legal definition of "selling data" I can think of. That they describe it as "broad and evolving" makes me suspicious of their whole discourse, I don't think I can take their communication as 100% in good faith anymore.

Don't get me wrong, even after this I still use Firefox and I think it's better than Chrome in the privacy axis. But it's really annoying that they're still trying to paint themselves treating your privacy as sacred when that's obviously not the case.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms...

Yes, I heard it was because of Pocket. Of course, they could have just been transparent about ti when people asked about it.

So. Maybe they should stop doing that thing?

That's the line they were unwilling to cross, to compromise their ad tech. Apparently, however anonymous it may be, it's still legally selling user data.

Including: "Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for ANY reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore." Emphasis mine.

Holy smokes. Mozilla is slowly tightening their grip on Firefox. We're looking at another SourceForge/StackOverflow/Reddit type of private equity takeover, I'm sure.

Edit. Forgot: StackOverflow and Trello on that list.

I like to think of it like this:

Now that solar panels have been shown increase the risk of people falling off rooftops, is coal the only option?

what timing https://www.der-postillon.com/2022/03/solarkatastrophe.html =P

(Solar disaster: 100,000 litres of sun rays leaked out of photovoltaic system)

Chrome (and Chromium) are created by the world's largest ad company. It was never an option.

Stick with Firefox and WebKit based browsers.

true

There's mozilla free versions of firefox, additionally there's ladybird browser in the brewing.

You seem to be the only one mentioning this. And I think it is important to stress.

Browser engines[1] are hard to get right. But not impossible.

Google did a great job with the Blink engine. So much so that even Microsoft caved in and is using it now. So Chrome-ish might seem the better option.

So should we cry that Mozilla is imploding under years of bad leadership? Yes! They are the main driver behind Gecko engine and it will likely suffer for it over time.

The good news is that we like with chrome-ish (blink based) browsers (such as Thorium) have a number of options. Librewolf, Waterfox and Floorp are all nice and usable cross platform implementations using the Gecko engine. On your Android device you can stay on Gecko with Waterfox or IronWolf.

Gecko will not implode from one day to another even if Mozilla does. And even if Mozilla does then maybe the community can pick up the pieces. But it will be a tough job.

There is then a risk of monopoly which is never good. It is then very positive as you state that Ladybird is getting velocity[2]. They target alpha in 2026, beta in 2027 with general release in 2028. This is seriously good news which cannot be understated. We have hope! People who care should really follow Andreas updates on Youtube[3]. So while 2028 seems far away you will see that they have already gotten very far and have a good trajectory.

A few years ago when Microsoft gave up and went with Blink I was really worried as Mozilla has been in a downwards spiral for years. But Ladybird (and by extension LibWeb) gives me reason for optimism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird_(web_browser) [3] https://www.youtube.com/@LadybirdBrowser/videos

I’m sticking with Mozilla Firefox.

There have been a several episodes of online uproar against Mozilla over the last couple decades. IMO they’ve either been mountains out of molehills (because the feature is still privacy-protecting or can be disabled etc) or Mozilla apologized and changed course.

You can not convince me this thread is not either made by someone in college or by a google plant.

Orion uses webkit, not sponsored by ad revenue

> webkit, not sponsored by ad revenue

It is — AFAIK, Google pays Apple enough money for the default search engine deal to cover Safari development along with all its components.

Does Apple do most Webkit development too, not just Safari? I thought it was originally spun off from KHTML. Did Apple take over most of the development at some point?

Sadly no linux support :-(

It has since a few days : https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/03/kag-orion-web-browser-co...

GNOME Web (formerly Epiphany) is also based on Webkit: https://apps.gnome.org/Epiphany/

Though I guess it's not extensible so you'll have to get some other way to block ads.

Linux soon

Librewolf on Linux, and IronFox on Android seem to be working very well for me based on ~ 1 week of usage, after moving away from FF.

Both work well with Firefox Sync, and also support addons, which is great.

The trust in Mozilla went from 70 to 60. The trust in the google monopoly is approximately -99999999999999999, give or take a few points. You just can't compare them.

Indeed. FF misstep didnt send me back into the arms of the biggest privacy abuser, it made me leave to their cute quiet cousin Zen.

This is a silly statement. Mozilla revised the terms almost a week ago after people complained: https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-techn...

Although Firefox is still the best to choose from a privacy standpunt currently, I am convinced the time will come where the sponsorship from Google will stop. Then Mozilla will likely not survive and the development of Firefox is left to the community. A browser is a pretty complex piece of software so I doubt the community will be able to maintain that.

OP here. I never intended to "rage bait" or something. With "Chrome-ish" i ment Chromium-based browsers. That's what i ment by "it feels like basically everything is Chrome nowadays". My question was: Taking FF out of the equation, which browsers except Chromium-Based ones are out there?

There are 3 major web browser engines out there atm, WebKit, Blink and Gecko. Gecko is developed by Mozilla, Blink by Google and WebKit by Apple. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#WebKit-...

I think that Firefox remains the best option. Their moves over the last few years have reduced their privacy proposition, but I'm still unaware of any better alternative.

I dont ever trust Chrome

Trust in Firefox is not gone, and chrome is not the only option.

Without going into "trust in Firefox gone" part (others will), there are FF forks that are privacy focused so Chrome-based browsers are not only option.

Just keep using Firefox or a fork like Zen.

The idea that using a chrome fork is somehow better is ridiculous.

short answer, yes, chromium and its forks.

long answer, firefox have a strong community and solid product but lacking a sustainable business model and a comeptitive pr team. their tech is really good, the people in charge just really suck.

So many people don't seem to know the difference between Chrome and Chromium.

Genuine question: could Chromium survive and thrive without Google's support? As far as I'm aware, most Chromium contributions come from Google, so while it's technically open-source, Google is still very much in control of it.

This "you can use Chrome without Google tracking" is an illusion. Sure, right now, you can have ungoogled Chrome, but what happens a few years down the line when Firefox is dead and we only have one engine, mostly backed by a questionnable corp, to use the internet?

Libra Wolf - early fork of Firefox maintained separately - supports FF addons

If you believe in the tripe that Eich posts, sure. It's not like he'd _gain_ from Firefox losing users to a chrome derivative, now would be? O right. He 100% has a dog in this fight and many yespeople hanging on his every word as he defames Firefox and promotes Brave. Follow the money.

Or, alternatively, be one of the few who doesn't give a hairy shit what did these alarmists are spreading and just carry on using the browser without remote desktop capabilities (amongst other things).

Running Gentoo made me look deeper into certain phenomena, such as why chrome takes about 3x longer to build than Firefox - and it turns out it's because there's a lot of bullshit in the source which is _not_ browser. You do you, but I'm going to use the browser that does what it says it should.

To quote Louis Rossmann: "tldr: install Librewolf and go on with your life" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bTquKjzos

Right now: Waterfox and Florp, both based on FF.

In long run: I hope Ladybird will become usable in the next couple of years.

I like chrome, I don't like google. I mean: I am so used to chrome devtools, I don't even know how to switch to firefox. I gave it a try and it was frustrating that I didn't know where to find my shit. Felt like 10x performance loss for my web development activities. Is there any way to make firefox devtools look and feel like chromes?

I doubt that customizing your dev tools would be worth the effort.

You’ll get accustomed to where things are as you go. After a few days or weeks, chances are you’re not going to even think about it again, or miss the old dev tools.

Surely there's more similarities than differences. We inspect HTML, we mess with CSS, we debug javascript, we look at headers, responses, warnings and errors. All that stuff is the same in both browsers. So what exactly about your shit is different?