Follow

Latest uBlock Origin Update Rejected from the Chrome Web Store. No time like the present to switch to Firefox.
github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock

@yogthos if you scroll to the end it turns out it was added anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@calm @yogthos @pupy still no time like the present to switch to firefox, which *doesn't* require someone personally beg a mozilla employee to accept the latest build of the #1 extension required to make a browser safely usable in 2019

@alexis @calm @yogthos @pupy Agreed that this is a pretty significant reminder to switch off of Google Chrome, as the APIs that allow uBlock to work are likely to be removed (or at least gutted) in the next couple of releases anyway.

May as well transition to a browser that isn't based on that rendering engine now, while it's possible to make a more graceful switch.

@salameleon @alexis @calm @yogthos much as I'm bothered by Firefox for a smattering of personal experience reasons (which is why I still use Chrome BC it's given me far less trouble) I will say the way Chrome has been going recently is....pretty goddamn awful

@pupy @alexis @calm @yogthos It would be nice if we could go back to the days where there were more than two browsers actually worth mentioning, as opposed to having to choose between Chrome or any of its zillion derivatives, or Firefox. Anything else is not even on the radar.

@salameleon @alexis @calm @yogthos god yeah I really hate that the only options are Chrome, Firefox or rebadged chrom(e/ium)

@pupy @salameleon @calm @yogthos right? firefox hasn't been *good* in a long, long time, it's just the least worst of the two remaining survivors, and i feel like it's pretty important to at least try to make sure that number doesn't drop to one because then an advertising company gets to do whatever the fuck it wants and that sounds like even more of a dystopia than what we have right now

@yogthos Most of the time, my default is Firefox, anyway. :P

@yogthos ... to switch to Firefox based SecBrowser, of course – which is Tor Browser without Tor –, if you can.

whonix.org/wiki/SecBrowser

@mastor oh please no, I don't even see whether this is FLOSS or so. Use Tor Browser for browsing via Tor, period. It has everything you need, everything else just makes you more fingerprintable.

@yogthos
> uBlock rejected from the Chrome Web Store ... switch to Firefox

Our jail became too uncomfortable, let’s move to another one!

Go free? No, what’s a nonsense!

@z how's Firefox a jail? Mozilla is a non profit organization last I checked.

@yogthos

For a no profit organization it's pretty wealthy thanks to its commercial patners: from #Google to #CloudFlare, I don't think we can qualify #Mozilla products as #free.

@z

@Shamar @yogthos

[Mozilla]’s pretty wealthy thanks to its commercial partners I don’t think we can qualify #Mozilla products as #free.

Being poor does not make software you make free. Respecting user’s freedoms to use it for any purpose, modify to suite any needs, and distribute for any fee with or without modifications does.

You are not allowed even to redistribute exact, unmodified copies of Mozilla Firefox® free of charge — what’s to think about here? Of course, it’s nonfree.

@Z

One could say that there is no link between #freedom pursuit and #wealth, and according to liberals and their #propaganda / #marketing / theoretical framework there isn't any.

But statistically, groups that collect wealth just pretend to fight for freedom.

After all wealth is a form of #power and power restricts others' freedom.

So ultimately rich philantrophism is just a marketing investment. Or a form of corruption. Or, most of times, both.

#Mozilla's wealth come from #US companies that work in the opposite direction of what they pretend to do. So they align with their interests.

We shouldn't forget what #OpenSource is: a marketing tool.

They want to be confused with the #FreeSoftware built from the #hackers they marginalize, but they have nothing to do with us.

@yogthos

@Shamar @yogthos

But statistically, groups that collect wealth just pretend to fight for freedom.

I dunno what this statistics is, but history teaches us that groups that collected enough wealth do value their freedom, and are perfectly ready to fight for it. If necessary, literally fight — with weapons. These fights are now known as bourgeois revolutions.

And I do not see, why freedom of computing should be an exception. Does Google willingly use nonfree software? I never heard of any example and I bet — no: they do value a freedom to make their computing however they wish, without asking anyone’s assent. But even Google is not almighty: we know, they failed to eliminate Intel ME (a malware built into all modern Intel CPUs), but note — they tried.

They do not bother about our freedom, of course.

@z @Shamar from everything I've read Mozilla is barely scraping by as opposed to collecting wealth. And it's the only organization that's currently preventing Chrome from being the only game in town.

Mozilla might not be perfect, but saying it's just like Google is just false equivalence. If not for Mozilla we'd all be running IE today and there wouldn't even be Internet as we know it.

@yogthos @Shamar

from everything I’ve read Mozilla is barely scraping by

So what? You choose your tools out of pity for their developers?

@yogthos @Shamar

the only … preventing Chrome from being the only game in town

Your metaphoric language only obscure things. Please, be specific. Firefox is the only browser besides Chrome? No, there are plenty of them, and some are free. Gecko is the only free webengine besides Blink? No, the original WebKit is still there.

but saying it’s just like Google is just false equivalence

So don’t say that. Be specific in your words: Firefox is a nonfree browser built from free sources — just like Chrome; Firefox is a jail, where you are not allowed to install addons without permit, — just like Chrome.

But for sure there are differences: for instance, Google never tries to present its browser as something freedom-respecting. In other words, Google is honest in that respect, while Mozilla is not.

@z @Shamar Firefox is the only alternative to Chrome that will work as expected for vast majority of the users. If Chrome gets a dominant market share, then Google will be able to completely ignore W3C. At that point the web will just be what Chrome does. We've already lived through exact same thing with IE. We know it doesn't end well.

Also, I can do whatever I want with Firefox, including loading custom add-ons in practice. And there is a perfectly valid security reason for discouraging that.

@yogthos @Shamar

Firefox is the only alternative to Chrome that will work as expected for vast majority of the users

No.

If Chrome gets a dominant market share

It already did. Blink, which it what really matters for your scenario, has even more.

We’ve already lived through exact same thing with IE.

That’s just a false equivalence. There is hardly anything in common between a sector dominated by a nonfree engine welded into a single nonfree product nailed to a single nonfree system and by a free cross-platform reusable engine.

Really, this is more like complaining about domination of Linux — nothing particularly good, but nothing critical either.

I can do whatever I want with Firefox, including loading custom add-ons in practice

Which indicates, that you either use a non-mainstream edition (e. g. “developer’s”) or your distributor violates the Firefox licence (which is fairly common, as Mozilla usually turns a blind eye to it).

And there is a perfectly valid security reason for discouraging that.

Yes, security is a well-known pretext for discouraging freedom.

@z @Shamar

>no
what alternative do you propose for somebody who's non technical?

>That’s just a false equivalence.
If Chrome becomes the only viable browser Google gets to dictate how the Internet works. They're already attempting to introduce things like AMP in it.

>Which indicates, that you either use a non-mainstream edition

And the problem there is what again?

>Yes, security is a well-known pretext for discouraging freedom.

Security is a real thing I'm afraid.

what alternative do you propose for somebody who’s non technical?

I do not propose ‘alternatives’ [0], I propose free software. If someone get used to Google Chrome® but now realised that it’s a jail, there is no reason to push him to Firefox®, there is free Chromium awaiting for him. Same the other way round.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative

@z javing at least 2 independent browser implementations available directly helps free software because it ensures having an open standard.

You're currently able to implement a browser by following W3C specifications. If we end up in a world where Blink is the de facto engine, that puts us right back to the days of IE. Anybody wanting to make an open and free browser would have to reverse engineer what Blink is doing.

@yogthos

Blink is the de facto engine, that puts us right back to the days of IE

Our dialogue got in a loop.

@z it's not that yet, Google still has to respect W3C, Firefox still works just fine implementing the common spec. I'd like the internet to keep using this open specification, and the only way to achieve that is by cutting down Chrome market share. Firefox is the only browser in a position to do that right now.

Having at least two browsers that are developed independently will always be better for user freedom.

@z

#Chromium is not much different from #Firefox: both depends on #Google money.

@yogthos

#GAFAM controls #WHATWG too and #LivingStandards follow the predominant implementations (guess who is predominant) so, despite the rhetoric there is no openness (nor #Freedom) in such "Open Standards".

As for #W3C I think this comment express well the state of affairs since years: w3.org/blog/2017/12/whatwg-wor

@Shamar @z Mozilla relying on Google money is something that can be fixed. They are actively looking to divest in Google, and people can to donate to them.

And yes, Google already has disproportionate control over the direction of the standards. The situation will be far worse if Blink is the only game in town.

My whole point here is that lack of diversity in the landscape is dangerous. Firefox for all its faults provides a viable alternative to Blink that people actually use.

@z @Shamar I don't see anything in MPL that would classify it as nonfree. Mozilla already distributes Firefox free of charge, and it does not prevent anybody from using Firefox as a base for their own browser either.

So not really sure where you're going with all that.

@yogthos @Shamar

I don’t see anything in MPL
MPL

Yes, here’s how Mozilla baffles naive users. MPL is not the the only document that comprises the end-licence of Firefox®.

that would classify it as nonfree

For instance, that is more than enough to render Firefox® nonfree: “If you wish to directly distribute copies of Firefox yourself, you must distribute the latest stable version available at Mozilla.org”. As well as that: “You may not charge for Firefox”. Or that: “You may not add to, remove, or change any part of Firefox”.

Mozilla already distributes Firefox free of charge

As well as Google.

and it does not prevent anybody from using Firefox as a base for their own browser either

As well as Google.

@yogthos

how’s Firefox a jail?

In the exactly same way Google Chrome is: it’s a nonfree software that have digital restrictions built-in to prevent you from installing extensions, that are not approved by its true master. That was what you’d complained about, was not it?

Mozilla is a non profit organization

How the hell this is any relevant? In any case:

$ whois mozilla.org | grep '^Registrant' Registrant Organization: Mozilla Corporation Registrant State/Province: CA Registrant Country: US

‘Corporation’, not ‘Foundation’.

@yogthos @wakingrufus Here’s a response from a Google employee saying the extension has been (finally) approved. There’s some insights into the escalation process too. reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/d

@yogthos this is one reason why things like app stores are better decentralized and community driven!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!