https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Mozilla_introduces_TOS_to_Firefox
https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Mozilla
https://librewolf.net/
00:00:00 - tl;dr solution use librewolf
00:00:52 - my tl;dr thoughts
00:01:08 - what mozilla did
00:02:28 - mozilla crashed archive.org…
00:03:03 - Louis gets trolled by a monster
00:03:56 - firefox’ removes statement on not selling personal data.
00:04:40 - terms were changed without explicitly alerting users
00:05:08 - mozilla did this at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME
00:07:05 - the worst communication policy
00:07:14 - California consumer protection act
00:08:03 - The suspicious part mozilla put in
00:08:26 - What is “selling data” ?
00:08:54 - Existing business practices exist in grey areas to CCPA
00:12:46 - Just use librewolf to avoid all this…
00:16:27 - Privacy policy is still fairly strong
00:17:20 - How money for nothing destroys people & companies
Around 1:00, he hits the jackpot: Mozilla sucks at communication, they always send mixed signals to the userbase. I also like what he said near the end, about getting money even if you do stupid shit.
I’ve seen people proposing to fork Firefox, to “fork” Mozilla, but what I feel like we need is to fork the very concept of a web browser.
Web browsers became such convoluted beasts that it is not feasible, in 2025, to create a new web engine; unless you have lots of money and no desire for more (both things are incompatible). And yet due to Pareto principle I expect that only a fraction of that complexity is truly necessary - with the rest being imposed by Google-fuelled standards.
There is Ladybird browser, its under development andif all goes well, maybe we will see it comming in a couple of years.
Ladybird is IMO a step in the right direction; specially if they’re able to release the alpha in 2026, otherwise they might be stuck chasing the Sun indefinitely*. However it is not enough - we should be seeing a situation where anyone reasonably motivated and knowledgeable should be able to pull out their own browser, it shouldn’t be restricted to big projects with big sponsors.
*I feel like web standards change so much not due to the underlying tech actually requiring them to do so, but to raise the entry of barrier of new competitors.
And just backwards comparability. Web developers aren’t going to fix their old site for your new browser, so you’d need to use the ancient convoluted code base to access them.
Unless you’re okay with only using the big new websites. Is it most people only use 4 websites regularly?
Weird take. Web browsers are document display systems that got a bunch built on top of them. Old websites are just documents. Web browsers are meant to render them. New websites are a single html entry point that hands all website construction to JavaScript which then creates a fake document in memory for the web browser to render.
Which one is the convoluted, hard to implement and support one?
Example: NYTimes website is literally a giant document. It could be pure html and lose nothing by being rendered on the server side…except capitalism. So it can’t be a document because the NYTimes needs to extract a reliable and consistent money stream from people, which means it needs to be enforced (according to them) and thus JavaScript.
I have a feeling that the “ancient convoluted code base” that exists for backwards compatibility isn’t convoluted or hard to maintain at all; rather the new features are, because they include everything and the kitchen sink, as necessary for the big new websites.
Plus it’s only backwards compatibility due to the feature creep of modern days. Otherwise it would be simply the support of current features.