Right now we can only speculate what's going on between Waterfox and System1. But what's clear is that the browser is independent again. I suggested it as an option so people won't have their internet experience ruined by extension blocking.
So, because you are retarded and cannot not install extension malware, I should give control over my extensions to moral busybodys that may or may not have my best interest in mind?
you are retarded and cannot not install extension malware
Gimme a break dude. Are you doing a code review of every extension you install? What about every time it updates? Do you even know when they update? Are you 100% confident that no malware author in the entire world is smarter than you on any given day?
I'm willing to bet that you've never run a software project of any kind, let alone one with a public add-on system. I have, and let me tell you - you need a remote kill list. Without one your project just becomes a middleman for criminals.
You''re okay ceding control over your browser under the false pretense of safety? You're fine with being exposed to malvertising? You want an Internet where you won't be able to block tracking?
Listen, I think adblock is good. You don't have to convince me of that.
I just don't think they're going to use a domain based add-on kill list for something as petty as disabling adblock. This would be discovered by mainstream users quite quickly and the backlash would be huge. The tactic is just too hamfisted to work.
I get why people were concerned about it, but honestly, it's not a bad idea for a normie browser. Extensions have always been a malware minefield. Most browsers will already get in your way if you try to load a really sketchy page. This is just an extra layer of security.
I don't actually see them using this as trying to slip in browser-level censorship of wrongthink. It's too roundabout a way to do it, with too many ways it would fail, and not worth it for a browser as small as Firefox. Browser-level censorship would have to be a concerted effort from all the major browsers, and even then, it would still be the least likely way to do it. They've already successfully censored sites that ran counter to the mainstream, and they certainly didn't need to be this obtuse about it to accomplish it.
The browser having more control than the user is par for the course for a normie browser. It's necessary, really. We haven't come that far from the days of adware toolbars. If you want more control, or are a political dissident, you shouldn't be using Firefox to begin with.
Really bizarre that this targets a group of Brazilian banking sites. Possibly part of some lawsuit?
Agree with others that this may be weaponized in the future, but on the surface this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to something and isn't an immediate censorship concern.
Everybody should be using Waterfox or Pale Moon, if they weren't already.
What's the deal with Waterfox? They sold out to an ad company several years back but I recently heard they're doing something else now.
Right now we can only speculate what's going on between Waterfox and System1. But what's clear is that the browser is independent again. I suggested it as an option so people won't have their internet experience ruined by extension blocking.
Yes, these are great browser forks because they ... uh.. *checks notes* let you run extension malware on Brazillian banking sites?
You really believe that it's to apply just for that?
Yes. What do you think it's for? Adblock?
So, because you are retarded and cannot not install extension malware, I should give control over my extensions to moral busybodys that may or may not have my best interest in mind?
Let me ask this: Do you eat steak?
Gimme a break dude. Are you doing a code review of every extension you install? What about every time it updates? Do you even know when they update? Are you 100% confident that no malware author in the entire world is smarter than you on any given day?
I'm willing to bet that you've never run a software project of any kind, let alone one with a public add-on system. I have, and let me tell you - you need a remote kill list. Without one your project just becomes a middleman for criminals.
You''re okay ceding control over your browser under the false pretense of safety? You're fine with being exposed to malvertising? You want an Internet where you won't be able to block tracking?
Listen, I think adblock is good. You don't have to convince me of that.
I just don't think they're going to use a domain based add-on kill list for something as petty as disabling adblock. This would be discovered by mainstream users quite quickly and the backlash would be huge. The tactic is just too hamfisted to work.
Eh a lot of banks still use Flash.
Mozilla went the wrong direction years ago
I get why people were concerned about it, but honestly, it's not a bad idea for a normie browser. Extensions have always been a malware minefield. Most browsers will already get in your way if you try to load a really sketchy page. This is just an extra layer of security.
I don't actually see them using this as trying to slip in browser-level censorship of wrongthink. It's too roundabout a way to do it, with too many ways it would fail, and not worth it for a browser as small as Firefox. Browser-level censorship would have to be a concerted effort from all the major browsers, and even then, it would still be the least likely way to do it. They've already successfully censored sites that ran counter to the mainstream, and they certainly didn't need to be this obtuse about it to accomplish it.
The browser having more control than the user is par for the course for a normie browser. It's necessary, really. We haven't come that far from the days of adware toolbars. If you want more control, or are a political dissident, you shouldn't be using Firefox to begin with.
no, they've long since lost any benefit of the doubt. the leftist has shown that anything it can weaponize, it will.
Really bizarre that this targets a group of Brazilian banking sites. Possibly part of some lawsuit?
Agree with others that this may be weaponized in the future, but on the surface this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to something and isn't an immediate censorship concern.
Great link and article though.