Love this welcome page after Firefox updated

those tables usually are wrong or misleading, i don't like them.

Edge for example has the 3rd party cookie blocking and it works ok, so why it's "no" and not "somewhat" or similar?

I dont see the line "3rd party cookie blocking"
- should be "prevent sites from tracking". Or they carefully chose that sentence in order to give a "no" to edge and "somewhat" to chrome and opera
The 'Enforce users choice' is just GPC on by default I believe. Which means nothing since it is still voluntary.
By that logic Linux supports windows because I can run it using wine.
Yeah I’m confused about what tracking Chrome blocks that Chredge does not.
Does it, though? Or does Microsoft come under the second party label
- if i enable it, most websites don't load ads at all, including MSN news that's ad-ridden

We Dutchies had a commercial like that.
Loosely translated: "We from WC duck recommend WC duck products."
Its kind of like Simplex Chat claiming to be more secure and private than everything else. (Solid platform though)
i'm the bestest browser guys, i swear. source: trust me bro.
Microsoft Edge has entered the chat

I think this is a shitpost of the highest order. If this appears to everyone (?) it adds nothing, and the crappy table is just astonishingly blatant cherry-picking.

That's how all these tables are. If a vendor presents a table comparing themselves to competitors, it's going to be cherry picked.
I think it's a work of love. :)
It seems to trigger discussions like yours, so it's good, a forum is for discussion.
astonishingly blatant cherry-picking
Did you expect them to create a table showing how mediocre they are?
Chrome and Google 4 LYFE bro!

I like using Firefox, but it's a bit ironic to have google analytics tracking on the page you declare to protect the users privacy.

They never claimed firefox.com was privacy focused. Only your browser.
- Just doesn't sit well But at least it's open source

Safari needs a tick in “copy urls without site tracking” since ios17 and macOS Sonoma

https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/remove-tracking-information-urls-safari/

Copy without tracking has been hit or miss for me on Firefox
- I just gave up and went back to using ClearURLs add-on. Nothing else seems to work as reliably, not even adding rules to uBO.
Firefox's implementation has never worked for me.

I didn't get that but I guess because I have a plugin to give me nice backgrounds on new tabs.

But yeah, shots fired. Nice!

The only issue is that only already existing Firefox users see this, and we already know this.

Tabbliss represent
- Yassssss
What's the extension for nice backgrounds on new tabs?
- I use "renewed tab"
True, but I can share it with friends who already think I'm weird because I use Linux and they can have another reason why they think I am weird.

Every brother has one of these on their site, and somehow that browser always wins

So does Simplex Chat.

Im just over here using firefox since it was still netscape navigator 2.0.

Another update? Okay

They need to add a row for ~~"Owned by a foreign superpower"~~"Owned by the Chinese government" and a check for Opera.

@DannyMac @Napain They are all owned by foreign powers.
Oh, your definition of "foreign" is non-US?
- Everyone knows the world is divided into:
  United States
  Everyone Else
- How is Mozilla owned by the US government?
On one hand, yeah. On the other hand, that could be a point in its favor, depending on your threat model. After all, if you're American, China can't prosecute you for secrets it learns from Opera the way the FBI could prosecute you for secrets it learns from Google.
- On the third hand it's pointless cause they all buy each other's data anyways.
Literally every single entry is owned by a foreign superpower.

Of these type of browser privacy comparisons the best I have found so far is https://privacytests.org/

There's a line "Insecure website warning" and it says firefox doesn't have it. My firefox always displays a warning when opening a http site. edit: Isn't https-only enabled by default?
- Sorry, I don't use Firefox so I cannot check what the default is at the moment. I have Librefox and Mullvad Broswer and https is on by default and they both have a green tick on this test.
- Off the top of my head https-only is an available setting but is not enabled by default. Although "insecure website warning" would suggest to me that the certificate is expired or invalid, and Firefox is usually the easiest web browser to push past a self-signed certificate warning for local services
Looking at that, why do some browsers block media query screen size by default??
- It's in the "Fingerprinting resistance tests" section so it would be one of the ways of preventing a browser from being uniquely identified by various reported variables, screen height, width etc. It's worth taking a look at this site that someone else here mentioned to see what information your browser is giving up about itself: https://www.amiunique.org/
- The browser window size is an easy way to fingerprint. You might be the only person viewing web content in a 1916x988 window who also has a certain font installed.

Feel free to test your fingerprinting resistance on a stock Firefox-install. https://www.amiunique.org/

So it says that the fingerprint is unique. What information do I gain from that?
- It means that you are not protected. The fingerprint resistance failed. Firefox has very weak fingerprint resistance out of the box, I don't know why they advertise it as being effective. If your fingerprint is unique, it means every site you visit knows exactly who you are and share your visit and actions on that site with all their friends so that you can be tracked through the internet.
  To be clear, a unique fingerprint doesn't have to mean you can be tracked. You can set up your browser to randomise attributes, which means you can have a unique fingerprint, but not an unusual fingerprint, and not the same fingerprint on any two visits. That way you can't be singled out from the other users who set up their browsers like this, and if done well, can't be singled out from any first-time visitor.
- The information that Google iframe gains on almost every site is that it is you visiting that site, as verified by your unique fingerprint. Into your profile it goes.

Honestly I don't see the reason they put that there. I already own Firefox why are you trying to win me over?

People tend to have multiple browsers. You might have FireFox installed but still not be aware why you should use it over other browsers on your computer.
- This is a very good reason to put this kind of page in. For less computer savvy people, they may vaguely know "if I click this fox icon it takes me to the Internet and so does this colorful circle and this blue swoosh, so it's all the same" but when they accidentally open one they use less often, seeing something like this might push their preference a little for which one they open
- i do the multiple browsers thing, but it's firefox, firefox developer, and librewolf (i also have a seamonkey and a waterfox on one system). and they can all run at the same time without conflicting with another.
  the few instances where i need a chromium-based one, it's a fresh 'install' of a portable 'alternative' like vivaldi or opera from portableapps (or via appimage on linux) and then deleted when i'm done with it.
- Oh that makes sense. I just assumed people who have Firefox would know stuff like that since Chrome is usually the one people know about but yeah it could have already been in the OC or they just searched for a different one randomly.
For the newbies

Conveniently excluding Vivaldi browser.

- Youch, that's just mean!
- If it's going to be about privacy, they should at least include the privacy oriented browsers even if they aren't the biggest ones out there.
And DuckDuckGo Browser
- And lynx
And Brave too, which inconveniently beats firefox hands down in independent privacy checks. The mozilla foundation finally needs to step it up.
- That heavily depends. Brave may have better advice/tracker blocking by default, but they send more telemetry. Them being an advertising company also doesn’t speak for them. Brave is a decent browser and on IOS/IPadOS a good option for open source + Adblock, but max privacy would be reconfigured Firefox or Librewolf.
- Everyone's just trying to strike a balance between protecting privacy and preserving usability - it's not as simple as just enabling the strictest privacy protections, consequences be damned. Case in point: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/brave-to-end-strict-fingerprinting-protection-as-it-breaks-websites/
- I have no idea why you were down voted. These are facts, not opinions

be sure to run on top of linux otherwise...

If only Firefox on Android doesn't refresh the pages every time I switch to another app and back to Firefox (and even showing only black screen), just to input 2FA code or card detail. It becomes really annoying.

The desktop browser is pretty fine though.

Android is really aggressive with killing background apps

I'd rather them just put up the results of the chrome lawsuit rather than a marketing table lol.

You love it?

I bet you hate Google doing self ads?
Yet this is also just a self ad. And spammy, because it pops open a tab, something browsers are supposed to suppress unless specifically enabled.

This is a false equivalence.
If Google advertises the merits of their browser within their browser, like Mozilla is doing here, then that's fair enough, I have zero complaints about that. Why not have a welcome page when you install the browser, highlighting the benefits of using your product?
If Google is utilising their other products to unfairly give themselves a leg up in advertising their browser, then yeah, I'm against that.
If I search on Google (the de facto standard), I shouldn't have popups telling me to use Chrome. If I watch a YouTube video, Google shouldn't be allowed to place Chrome ads there.
Same goes for MS relentlessly advertising Edge in Windows and forcing it into other Microsoft programs.
Those are examples of companies abusing their monopolistic market position to gain a business advantage, which is illegal. It's nothing like Mozilla having a Firefox ad within Firefox.
- I tend to agree here. It's like Netflix showing banners of what content they have, on their own site.
  "Here are some features of this product you have!" Intrusive, maybe, but not like they're directing you away to pay more money.
- But what about Duckduckgo advertising its browser on its search homepage? Would that be a problem too? Or is it only because Google has a dominant position in search?
  Would it be an issue for Apple to advertise its browser on macOS? Every time I get a system update on macOS, I get a "what's new" thing for Safari, even though I never use it (Firefox is my default browser on my work computer). Is that okay? Is it okay if Microsoft does it as well?
  What about Mullvad advertising its browser on its webpage, which is selling a VPN service? Mullvad Browser integrates Mullvad VPN features, so it's directly related, kind of like how Chrome integrates Google Search features and Safari integrates macOS features.
  I'm not sure where I stand here. Saying company X can't do what company Y can do just because company X has a dominant position just feels wrong. I'm all for attacking abuse of dominance, I just think this argument is a little weak.
Tell me about it. I use nothing but Firefox right now and I hate these intrusive ads. Of course, there’s no built in way to disable it, when it could very easily be a toggle.