“It’s safe to say that the people who volunteered to “shape” the initiative want it dead and buried. Of the 52 responses at the time of writing, all rejected the idea and asked Mozilla to stop shoving AI features into Firefox.”

  • railway692@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Those unhappy have another option: use an AI‑free Firefox fork such as LibreWolf, Waterfox, or Zen Browser.

    And I have taken that other option.

    Also: Vanadium and/or Ironfox on Android.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      A fork is great, but the more a fork deviates, the more issues there are likely to be. Firefox is already at low enough numbers that it’s not really sustainable.

      • DrDystopia@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Then Mozilla should start listening to their users instead of driving them away. I know I stopped using Firefox after being a regular user since launch because the AI nonsense became the last sta straw.

        • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Then Mozilla should start listening to their users instead of driving them away.

          I think the hope is to get more people in than losing them. But with Ai nobody will stay forever, because the time someone else makes a better Ai tool, they switch. Because Mozilla loses personality and uniqueness and start getting replaceable. … just like employees who are forced to use Ai instead their own work and knowledge.

      • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        My two biggest issues with a fork are: a) timely updates, they take a bit longer than the main version, and b) trust issues, I don’t trust most forks.

      • railway692@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It is.

        My understanding is that you go to Ironfox to optimize for privacy and Vanadium to optimize for security.

        It depends on your threat model.

        Either way, both are better on both fronts when compared to default Chrome or Firefox.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 month ago

          Wrong. You are both popularizing Google tech and decreasing web browser diversity when you use any chromium variety

          • TheOneCurly@feddit.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Vandium is all about not standing out from the crowd. You use it to not make a statement and hide your activity within the majority of useragents. If you want to make a statement that’s great, but you should only do it when you’re ok being fingerprinted.

              • TheOneCurly@feddit.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                I didn’t mean that in a negative way. All I meant was that using a non-chromium browser to help move the needle is a privacy tradeoff. I keep both vandium and ironfox installed and use them at different times for different things.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 month ago

              Are you serious? Chromium is very much mostly written by Google and the direction it takes in every way that matters is entirely controlled by Google.

              • onehundredsixtynine@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                This still doesn’t mean Google has some kind of ownership for it. Nobody stops you from forking it and taking it into a different direction.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  It actually does. You’re still supporting a browser monoculture unless you change it so radically that it makes no sense to call it a fork anymore

                • russjr08@piefed.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I mean technically, yes. However the sheer amount of LoC chromium has and the costs of actually hard forking (and properly maintaining it) makes it quite difficult. That’s why right now we only have the choice of Firefox based browsers and Chromium, then hopefully a good third contender being the Ladybird browser in the future.

                  You could also go build a house (or even a cabin) with your own two hands, but most people typically go and buy one or pay for one to be built for them instead.

      • ashx64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        The truth is that Chromium is really good. It has the best security and performance.

        Vanadium takes that and makes changes to make it more secure and private.