Firefox is becoming an AI browser and the internet is not at all happy about it

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Initial Reaction & Privacy Concerns

  • Many commenters see “AI browser” as yet another privacy invasion and resource drain, rather than something users asked for.
  • Core worry: user data and chat history will be harvested or misused, and “AI features” will be pushed by default instead of being a clearly opt‑in extra.
  • Some frame this as one more step in “enshittification” and a distraction from basics: performance, memory use, standards compliance, and site compatibility.

Alternatives & Forks

  • Suggested replacements: LibreWolf, Mullvad Browser, Tor Browser, Waterfox, Brave, Safari, ungoogled Chromium, and niche projects like Thorium.
  • Mullvad Browser is highlighted as “Tor without Tor network” with uBlock Origin, NoScript, anti‑fingerprinting, and fewer knobs to resist fingerprinting.
  • Several expect Firefox forks (e.g., LibreWolf, Waterfox) to gain users if Mozilla continues down this path.

Business Models, Ads, and Crypto

  • Repeated complaint that “privacy‑respecting ads” (Brave, Firefox, DuckDuckGo) haven’t really worked; ads themselves are seen as the core problem.
  • Brave is divisive: some say crypto is unobtrusive; others distrust anything associated with crypto or bundled wallets.
  • There’s debate over a reported remark that Mozilla leadership “could” block ad blockers to earn more; some interpret it as a worrying trial balloon, others as explicitly rejecting that path.

Trust, Settings, and Opt‑Out

  • Some are satisfied as long as AI is fully disable‑able (ideally via clear UI, not only about:config) and can be administratively locked down.
  • Others don’t trust Mozilla: they claim some toggles don’t really disable features, dislike important options being hidden, and fear AI will eventually become mandatory.
  • Counter‑argument: Firefox is open source; forks already strip features, and any non‑honored setting would be treated as a bug rather than malice.

Should Browsers Be “AI Platforms”?

  • One camp: LLMs are a paradigm shift; in ~10 years they’ll touch nearly every computer interaction, so browsers must integrate them to stay relevant.
  • Opposing camp: this repeats “blockchain will be everywhere” hype; AI may be important, but stuffing LLMs into every app (including browsers) is unnecessary bloat.
  • More nuanced view: Mozilla could instead be an honest broker around AI—privacy middleware, or optional extensions/companion apps—rather than bundling agentic features directly into Firefox.

Search, AI, and the Broken Web

  • Multiple comments tie AI-in-browser to the decline of web search: SEO spam, ad‑laden results, and content farms push people toward LLM answers.
  • Some see AI summarization as genuinely useful and already use Firefox’s summarize‑page feature; others prefer better traditional search and less polluted content.
  • Paid search alternatives (like Kagi) are cited as closer to “old Google,” but can’t fix that much of the underlying web is now ad‑optimized junk.

Public Funding & Strategic Importance

  • A few argue independent browsers are public infrastructure that can’t be sustainably profitable and should be state‑funded; others say voters would see that as wasteful since browsers are “free.”
  • There’s tension between those who think Firefox remains critical as the main non‑Chromium engine and those who point out its tiny market share and Google dependency.

Community Mood Around Mozilla

  • Some see the backlash as overreaction and part of a broader trend of “trendy Mozilla hate,” often from people who haven’t used Firefox in years.
  • Others think Mozilla has earned skepticism through opaque decisions, superfluous features, and lack of focus on user‑requested fixes.
  • Many land on a pragmatic stance: continue using Firefox (or a hardened fork), kill AI features, and watch what Mozilla actually ships rather than reacting solely to headlines.