I actually appreciate the openness. As long as it is openly communicated and optional (but yes... its opt-out instead opt-in), I do not mind that much.
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
47 points (96.1% liked)
Firefox
22709 readers
21 users here now
/c/firefox
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.
Rules
1. Adhere to the instance rules
2. Be kind to one another
3. Communicate in a civil manner
Reporting
If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Hmmm not keen on letting Brave censor the web for me. And why the hell would Brave give Waterfox money if there's no telemetry?
Idgaf about allowing search ads by default on their search partner, whatever fine.
But the Brave part smells really really bad, wasn't their ad blocker inserting ads of its own?
read the article. they're using brave's open source adblock library; brave isn't paying them to do this.
Strange to frame it as a financial sustainability decision then.
The financial decision part is regarding search ads with Startpage. Again, read the article.
Brave's adblockers is subpar in comparison to uBlock Origin and their tool set. It is not only about block lists.
use ublock...
genuine question, why were people using waterfox instead of ironfox?
waterfox is way older, one of the first "successful" forks of firefox, and it's not android exclusive, so people who for one reason or the other wanted a gecko alternative used this