SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to Ignore Chrome's Anti-Ad-Blocker Changes, Despite Shared Codebase
Despite sharing a common Chromium codebase, browser makers like Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi don't have plans on crippling support for ad blocker extensions in their products -- as Google is currently planning on doing within Chrome.
The three browsers makers have confirmed to ZDNet, or in public comments, of not intending to support a change to the extensions system that Google plans to add to Chromium, the open-source browser project on which Chrome, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi are all based on.
A few hours after reading about Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi breaking with Google blocking ad-blockers, I find this story -
Firefox may introduce a paid version in order to reduce its reliance on Google revenue
Mozilla, the maker of open source browser Firefox, is by no means strapped for cash; although the said browser is offered free of charge, the foundation has a lucrative search deal with Google.
Some of the revenue also comes thanks to its controversially proprietary online bookmarking service Pocket, and some from sponsored content and donations.
But although the Google deal is sweet – Mozilla is very dependent on it and nervous about the prospect, however unlikely, of losing it. Therefore it always seems be on the lookout for new revenue streams.
Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
In an interview with German media outlet T3N, the company's CEO, Chris Beard, said that it's aiming to launch the new version by October, with features like a VPN and secure cloud storage.
The company's already experimented with a VPN service by partnering up with ProtonVPN and offering a $10 subscription. Now, the company's thinking of offering some amount of free VPN bandwidth to get you started, and then charge a premium for metered access in the form of a monthly subscription.
So - what is the future? Are browsers to be divided between "free" browsers, that play games with Google, and paid browsers, which thumb their noses at Google?
And, how will all of that affect those of us who routinely modify their browsers? Will we have to work harder, for the same effect - or will we just be shot down in flames? Surrender to Google, or pay to browse?
Original Submission #0 Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday June 10 2019, @09:20PM (11 children)
Pay - provided I'm 100% my private data isn't sold behind my back anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday June 10 2019, @09:28PM (4 children)
:-) You will never know for sure.... Six months from now you will read about another data "leak"...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday June 10 2019, @09:32PM (1 child)
Yep. That's mostly why I never pay for promises I'm sold that I can't verify.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @10:29PM
A proper non-profit/not-for-profit supporting an open source codebase and a minimally hands-on series of web services.
They shouldn't be doing social outreach. They shouldn't be pretending they're a movement. They should only have one mission goal and focus on that. And anyone involved who wants to forward their other agendas should do it from another pulpit, corporation, or non-profit, as applicable.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday June 10 2019, @10:31PM (1 child)
Six months?
Damn but you're an optimist.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:27PM
Seriously, most aren't reported that quickly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:30PM (2 children)
How naive and innocent to believe paying keeps data from being monetized... give your pet unicorn a hug for me.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday June 10 2019, @09:35PM
Aah, the beauty of irony...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:28AM
By paying, you have now authenticated the info you just gave them against your payment credentials.
Often, it's not paying for something that makes me so leery, naw, I want to keep it to myself that I am interested in such a thing...or I do not want my payment credentials in yet more hands. Unfortunately, I cannot just send 'em a buck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)
We're talking about Mozilla here. They'll use your money to pay executive bonuses and then use the money from monetizing your data to install new bathrooms for several additional genders. Win-win.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:50PM
Wisdom from the ancients. [mistupid.com]
Create an account AC, let your legacy live on!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Monday June 10 2019, @10:32PM
Pay, but only for purely open source code. Instead of having licensing and all that bullshit, just charge for support and access to blacklisting services. Make it a service actually worth paying for.
The features are super simple:
1) Fingerprint anonymization - Collect all fingerprints from existing browsers, and then distribute the fingerprints that would still support most browsing. Collection is anonymous.
2) Darknet/P2P/Onion Routing - Distribution and collection of Bayesian Poisoning elements (fingerprints being one) uses this network. Regular traffic could too.
3) Blacklisting service - Similar to popular ad blocking utilities, curate a list of trackers, and their IP addresses. The browser by default blocks all connections. Browsers can use #2 to report infractions, that can in turn be added to the blacklist.
4) Site rendering - Guarantee that you don't need NoScript locally, because a service renders your pages for you and relays the new DOM state back. Any information leakage exposes the services infrastructure, which also helps in performing Bayesian poisoning.
I'd pay $10-$15 a month for the services, and browser software that puts the user FIRST.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.