On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:15:12 -0400 Ken Burns <k...@kcburns.com> wrote:
> Key point: "(if the user opts-in to them)". If the user (myself > included) clicks the readily displayed option to opt out, then you > get very effective ad blocking, combined with exceptional privacy. > Yes, and since privacy is a huge field I add specifically that at least on Android it even does a decent job at anti-fingerprinting, as far as that is still possible and for those who care. In this respect too and again speaking of Android, I'm not aware of another browser that comes close. Or even cares. Compared to Chrome there are a few compatibility issues of course, some sites or apps don't support it or not correctly. I can live with that nor is it much different from Firefox even on desktop. For me on mobile it's a no-brainer, don't know what to do were it not for it. Would probably make do with DDG's. That's solid though rather limited in comparison. Other than that there's basically just Chrome. It's all right knowing that, and getting reminded such and such isn't perfect, either (what is?). It'd be rather more enlightening to know what people actually use instead. That's not a thing on x86 as far as I'm concerned, where we have Firefox, thank goodness. And ToS or not I still have no clue why anyone would want to use anything else, forks included honestly. At least as long as Mozilla allows for proper ad blocking, and I'm not sure they could afford not to. It's not Google after all. > Yes, that defeats their income stream, but so be it; because it > provides what I want in a browser. > Like others said, it should be possible to support in other, more no nonsense ways. > By the way, I always use their Private mode, but not their TOR mode. > Me too. With any browser, on any platform, always private. In my case it's learned behavior, mainly from the desktop and to avoid data cluttering. I prefer clean states, don't care about sessions or cookies. Oliver
