Choose the browser that best suits your privacy needs

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s move to restrict powerful ad‑blocking APIs in Chrome is pushing many privacy‑conscious users to reconsider alternatives such as Firefox, Brave, Vivaldi and smaller Firefox forks like LibreWolf and Mullvad Browser. Commenters weigh trade‑offs between privacy, security, extension support and usability: Firefox is praised for uBlock Origin support, containers and independence from Chromium, but criticized for past performance issues, mobile bugs, weak translation and profile handling. Underlying it all are worries about Google’s and Microsoft’s dominance over web standards, the financial dependence of Mozilla on Google, and whether network‑level blocking or non‑Chromium engines are necessary to preserve an open, user‑controlled web.

uBlock Origin, Manifest V3, and ad blocking

  • Strong insistence that “uBlock Origin” is distinct from “uBlock” (the latter adopted “acceptable ads” and is widely distrusted).
  • Many see Google’s Manifest V3 and related API changes as a strategic attack on powerful blockers like uBlock Origin.
  • Firefox is praised for keeping the blocking webRequest API in MV3 while also implementing declarativeNetRequest, allowing full-strength blockers to continue.
  • Some note a uBO Lite MV3 version already works reasonably in Chrome, arguing “end of adblocking” claims are overstated; others consider this a degraded compromise.

Firefox vs Chromium (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, etc.)

  • Many long‑time Firefox users report excellent stability and huge tab counts; a minority report frequent crashes, freezes and poor performance, especially on mobile or with specific setups.
  • Firefox is favored for:
    • Better integration with uBlock Origin.
    • Multi-Account Containers and container-based isolation.
    • Built-in tracking protection that even hits Google’s Adsense.
  • Criticisms of Firefox:
    • Slower adoption of some APIs (e.g., WebGPU, WebUSB/Serial).
    • Weaker or missing features versus Chromium, such as translation (esp. on iOS/Android), app/PWA mode, tab groups/vertical tabs, and profile switching UX.
    • UI changes and aesthetics some find ugly or regressive.
  • Chromium-based alternatives:
    • Brave: praised for built-in shields not subject to MV3, but criticized for crypto/Rewards and for depending on Blink.
    • Vivaldi: strong tab grouping/vertical tabs and customizability, but still tied to Chromium.
    • Edge: seen by several as “spyware” with aggressive Bing/ads/telemetry despite some nice features and Windows integration.
    • Safari: viewed by some as hostile to developers but by others as reasonably private and efficient on macOS/iOS.

Mozilla’s funding, governance, and trust issues

  • Repeated concern that Mozilla’s dependence on Google search money makes it vulnerable to pressure, or at least creates perceived conflict of interest.
  • Debate over Mozilla’s spending priorities: CEO compensation, side projects, and “NGO-ish” initiatives vs. core browser engineering.
  • Some argue Firefox is “controlled opposition”; others counter that, despite flaws, it’s the only serious non‑Chromium engine and deserves support.

Features, UX, and performance debates

  • Desired Firefox features frequently mentioned:
    • Native vertical tabs and tab groups.
    • More robust, Chrome-level profile separation and switching.
    • First-class, built-in adblocking rather than relying on extensions.
  • Many praise Firefox devtools; some still strongly prefer Chrome’s.
  • Translation is a major blocker for some cross‑language users: Chrome’s integrated page translation is seen as far ahead; Firefox’s new on-device translation is welcomed but currently supports few languages.
  • There’s disagreement on comparative security: some claim Chrome is harder to fully exploit, others argue blockers + content filtering make Firefox safer for typical users.

Mobile and integration issues

  • Firefox for Android is widely criticized: past rewrites, instability, missing features, and poor integration (OAuth flows not returning properly, slower feel vs. Brave/Chrome).
  • Desktop integration quirks include difficulty launching new windows from different users/sessions, and some apps/websites (Slack calls, Google services) working better in Chrome.

Alternatives and strong-privacy setups

  • Librewolf, Mullvad Browser, and Tor Browser are mentioned as hardened or debranded Firefox variants; Mullvad is highlighted as aiming for uniform fingerprints and very strong privacy.
  • Some advocate network‑level blocking (Pi-hole, HOSTS lists, proxies) in combination with browser blockers, while noting DNS-only solutions can’t match uBO’s sophistication.
  • A subset recommends entirely avoiding youtube.com via frontends like Piped and heavy use of alternative clients, treating YouTube as hostile infrastructure.

Meta: article quality, market power, and the web

  • Several criticize the linked article itself as shallow, promotional for its email provider, and irresponsible for recommending insecure forks like Pale Moon as “privacy browsers.”
  • There is broad worry about Google’s dominance: search + ads + Chrome engine + payments to Mozilla/Apple is seen as structurally unhealthy for the web.
  • Some argue the best way to influence Google is to move real usage share to Firefox and other non‑Google‑tied options, rather than only complaining about Chrome.