Not at all. Mozilla is now controlled by hyper partisan political operatives. There should be zero intersection between partisan politics and my web browser.
I think the problem is deeper in the standard. Funding those who run after a train that is designed to be expensive to catch up with is wasted effort.
We need Web-next which would be clearly defined in proper primitives and features that don’t suck from the beginning and need no further extension. And a reference implementation of it in a clean way, even if not very performant. E.g. fine if it takes 50MB of RAM just to start and show a welcome tab. Implementors will optimize it later.
There are things you figure out when writing / playing with a reference implementation that aren't obvious from just the spec. For example: the W3C thought `box-sizing: content-box;` was a good idea, but Internet Explorer 3 implemented `box-sizing: border-box;` semantics which are, just, obviously better. (IE6 changed to context-box, but the W3C were introducing border-box in CSS3, which was then available in IE8.)
They should have gotten into privacy centric groupware a decade ago: thunderbird, collaboration office suite, calendar, tasks, etc all baked into Firefox ala nextcloud but with Mozilla polish.
I’d pay for that, instead they fuck around with VPNs and other stupid services that are harder to use than other products and not as good.
I’ll miss Mozilla when they’re gone but there will be no question as to why they’re gone.
I would like to fund a technical Mozilla that exclusively focuses on actual products and community building. I would not want to give my money to the current Mozilla, as I believe the money and endowment they already have would be sufficient or at least give them all the means to do it, if they consequently stripped away everything else.
The only way I would donate to Mozilla is if the corporation is shuttered and the non-profit is disentangled from it.
Any donations you send to Mozilla today go to the corporation and are not spent on the browser. They are spent on things that have nothing to do with the core mission of the maintaining the browser.
Nobody is allowed to fund Mozilla to maintain the browser, which is the actual question you're asking.
Jimmy Wales should really push for a Wikipedia fork of Firefox. People trust Wikimedia Foundation and the entire thing is in line with the goals of Wikimedia who also 'get' web development.
I figure it's either worth $0, or hundreds of $. I mean, sooo much whining about privacy and telemetry and ad-blocking but ultimately it's worth the same as a couple cups of coffee?
That seems to me to be a root question here. How much is privacy actually worth? The average number in this post seems about $20. So in real terms, nothing at all.
And yes, all of this is moot given that you can't donate to Firefox in the first place.
Still, for those starting a business, this is a excellent lesson- don't confuse volume with willingness to pay. Just because lots of people shout loudly about the size of their pain, don't just assume they'll pay real money to make it go away.
Mozilla are doing other things that a browser, yes. And this is good. Browsers are special and don't make money by themselves, and Firefox in particular is entirely dependent on Google's money. Having alternative projects that can bring revenue (e.g. Pocket) helps them remove that singular dependency and ensure they can survive long term.
And having a specific "donate to Firefox only" would probably end in disaster. They might end up in a situation where they're forced to waste money on Firefox because that's what the donations are for while not having enough money to keep the lights on in offices. For a fun example of what happens when you have fixed budgets that don't have any flexibility, Atlanta's MARTA was founded with an agreement providing public funding, with a fixed 50/50 split between capex and opex. So they found themselves with brand new trains because there's capex budget to spend, but falling apart infrastructure because 50% wasn't enough for opex.
Why do you think it's 0%? I doubt it, it's not like the money goes into separate buckets and engineering salaries for Firefox only come from the Google bucket, and donations get spent on lobster and champagne parties for the C-levels.
The money flow between the for-profit that develops Firefox and the non-profit foundation is one-way: From for-profit to non-profit. This is because it is illegal for the non-profit to give money to the for-profit.
Any donations you make go to the non-profit. They are not used and cannot legally be used for Firefox development.
Edit to add: Mozilla chose this legal structure. Mozilla chooses to disallow donations or payments directly to the for-profit. For example, nothing prevents using a shareware model, where Firefox is free but you can choose to pay for it. And Mozilla chooses to avoid mentioning this structure when accepting donations from you.
Firefox private donations amount to 8 million usd from the last published data. Their CEO makes 9 million a year. 0 of Mozilla donations directly make it to Firefox developers or activities.
You state that the non-Firefox activities of Mozilla are good, as if an established fact.
I'd reason that there's no consensus on this at all. Some things might be perceived as good, some neutral or bad, and many might be perceived as well intended but ineffective.
> You state that the non-Firefox activities of Mozilla are good, as if an established fact.
No, I'm stating that it's good that Mozilla has non-Firefox activities and is trying to diversify. I've only used Pocket from them and it's good, but don't have an opinion on any of their other activities.
I think there are lots of people in this thread saying (directly or indirectly): "There is nothing that Mozilla does that I would want to fund, besides Firefox!"
Why do they need to diversify? In case they need to pull the plug on Firefox? There is simply no way they could offer anything else as useful as Firefox.
They have enough money that they could throw it all in the S&P 500 and maintain Firefox indefinitely off the growth. That’s what they should do.
It's the opposite. It's the Mozillq Corporation that develops the browser. The nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, which owns the corp, does not. You can donate to the nonprofit, but you can't donate to the corporation. Furthermore, what a lot of people dislike is that the foundation's money doesn't go towards Firefox development. Instead, Firefox revenue (almost entirely royalties from Google) are passed by the corp to the foundation.
I would chip in the average Facebook user value for my country if, and only if, Mozilla completely reversed course on ad tech, selling user data, and 'private tracking'. The fact that it acquired Anonym (with its close ties to Facebook) makes it clear that Mozilla would not diversify away from ads, it would just jump from one ad company (Google) to the other (FB).
I would not give a penny to a company that looks to sell me out.
I would only donate for firefox specifically, when given the promise that it would be spent on development. Never to Mozilla with all the weird stuff they fund and work on.
If mozilla spun off firefox or otherwise reorganised their company to be about making firefox the best web browser possible, so I could trust that my money was going to development of the browser and not random nonsense, I would happily pay £5-10/month.
Yes; depending upon what governance and financial/business model they choose. Maybe Firefox to begin with. And of course minus the CXO and their entourage. I think it should go the Thunderbird way or something on those lines.
Survival of Firefox is critical (as of now more than Mozilla) for the open web to remain open.
Mozilla was one of the first to accept crypto donations. Then some 3 years ago an ex-Mozilla employee posted a rant on Twitter on how this effectively makes Mozilla super evil. It went somewhat viral and Mozilla stopped accepting crypto.
To me this is a great example on how useless virtue-signaling is.
Nothing was improved. The crypto world happily moves on and you won't be getting part of that money. What a great win. But I guess it's fine to receive fiat money of which you don't have a clue either about its source.
A user like me would be willing to idea of some monthly donation when Mozilla restructures its expenses.
If memory serves right, the biggest slice of expenses were in C-level compensations & shortlived pet projects. The organization has to focus on growing a cadre of good engineers and product teams for their core offerings (just like the ones who rewrote large chunks of Netscape code into a fledgling Firefox ~22y ago).
One can't be expected to donate just to eventually subsidize a penthouse purchase for the CEO or their swanky McLaren.
I’ve tolerated them being in the gray zone for years with their neglect of Firefox. After their latest stunt they’re out for me. I would not donate to an org that openly neglects a social responsibility of this magnitude.
You can look at their most recent annual report[1].
Their total expenses were ~$40M, and their CEO made over $6M in compensation. So out of a $100 donation, $16 goes directly into the CEO's pocket.
The total compensation for their top 10 employees is close to $10M. They all are President of this and VP of that and Director of thus--my strong guess is none of them write Firefox code. So $24 of your $100 go into their pockets.
This link is a tax form for the Foundation, which doesn’t do any development on Firefox at all. So, 0% of all donations would go towards Firefox, even after your proposal.
> But as reprehensible as the actions of Donald Trump are, the rampant use of the internet to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more than any one personality.
It just says his actions reinforced white supremacy, and you've got to admit, white supremacists do love Trump, and they specifically love him because of the words he says and the actions he takes.
Yes, that is the conspiracy theory. I mentioned that you were replying to. Donald Trump is not a part of reinforcing white supremacy, the idea is ridiculous, and you have no evidence for this bizarre claim.
What would it look like to you for a president to reinforce white supremacy? I don't think Trump is a white supremacist himself, but he's close with some of them and helped them in their white supremacist agenda.
The Mozilla article posted above doesn't advocate violence against any group (unlike Christians, Conservatives, anti-vaxers and Trump voters, who often do.) It's brief so I will post the four points that it does advocate for here, verbatim, since this is Hacker News and I assume no one will bother, otherwise:
- Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.
- Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.
- Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
- Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.
Implying that Mozilla are seeking the extermination of undesirables like modern day Nazis is, at best, an uncharitable reading. Also note that all of these points except the third (amplifying factual voices over disinformation) are advocated by conservatives as well, and only because there is political capital in denying the existence of "misinformation" altogether on the part of a party that employs it so often and so effectively (as pointed out by the article.) No, the other side is not exactly the same, nor doing exactly the same thing.
If I missed the part where Mozilla wanted to put anyone into mass graves, please point it out to me.
You misunderstand the comparison for some reason. Mitchell Baker called for an active suppression of not only those who partook of the January 6th riots but also those who were in any way connected to the political movement which gave birth to those riots as well as to 'amplify factual voices' which translates to 'propagandise for our ideology'. That is emphatically not what I want any technology vendor to do. If the likes of Baker get their way there'll be a need for samizdat [1] to circumvent the Baker Browser Brigade. As to whether the Baker Brigades may end up putting people in mass graves I'll leave for you to decide but if history is anything to go by the chance of that happening is definitely not zero. It happened in many countries which underwent revolutions based on the same ideology. They don't need to resort to mass murder to make the proposed censorship, political persecution and propaganda campaigns bad omens for their intentions.
"amplify factual voices" means "amplify factual voices."
When you've gotten to the point that you interpret "fact" as "ideology", and the mere mention of "fact" leads you to believe a browser vendor wants to put you into a mass grave, then there is clearly no point in continuing conversation. I hope that someday you get over your martyr complex.
But on the way out, whatever happened to AOC's kill list, or the death camps the Covid cops were going to send everyone to, or the FEMA camps Obama was going to send everyone to? I'm sure Biden was going to do something too but all of these nefarious plots against Christians, Conservatives, white people and Trumpists are hard to keep up with. The way they try to clout-chase victimhood from the very demographics they've traditionally oppressed is getting kind of pathetic.
As popular as deplatforming is, I'm with Mozilla on this one: deplatforming isn't a particularly effective measure, compared to transparency and scientific inquiry.
There are plenty other open source softwares out there. I don't really understand why Mozilla needs so much money, I heard their revenues were quite high.
Why do you mean by "you"?
I bet there would be plenty companies who would give money to mozilla to improve their browser and at least answer their demands.
I don't really know the mozilla company as a whole and how it's managed, but in my view there might be some things that could be removed from mozilla, like trim the fat. I have the feeling a lot of marketing people have entered mozilla, and I don't like it.
I want an answer to the question "how many software engineers and UX people are involved in the process of developing firefox".
Just let users and especially companies tell mozilla what it wants in firefox, and go from there.
I don't know how many people are paid for the services like sync, pocket, VPN, etc, and if those services are profitable to keep them.
I’ve used Firefox almost every day since it was released. I have way less issues with it than Chrome even though web developers never test their work with it.
I think an open web is critical to our society. I think Chrome is the new IE and that Google cannot be trusted with controlling the engine of essentially every browser besides Firefox.
I have disposable income and would pay every month to support it…but only if Mozilla had new management. I have zero trust in Mozilla’s management and feel that most money given to them would be wasted rather than used for browser development.
1. Zero telemetry. I mean ZERO: remove all telemetry code from the codebase. They can ask me about features the old-fashioned way - surveys!
2. Focus on privacy and security. Put these to the top of the list.
3. Stop paying your CEO millions! Not worth it imo!
4. Stop with all the other Mozilla shit! I am interested in a browser (and perhaps an email client... I'll let you work on that too!). No more Pocket, VPN and all that other shite.
5. ZERO, I mean ZERO data capture at all! Nothing. Not a single bit except when someone clicks the link to download Firefox, you can capture their userAgent and whatnot. But the browser, Firefox, should not be capturing a single byte of data from me once installed (except perhaps a periodic version check and you can pass in the version like this: https://firefox.com/update?v=123.568).
6. For sync, allow me to sync an encrypted file to Dropbox, OneDrive, Local drive, Whatever.com. That way my passwords, bookmarks etc. can be sync'd from MY location that I control, not yours!).
7. Have a "Block all shady JS tactics" button. This would include fingerprinting, location and such. Perhaps you could send bogus, random data when it's asked for instead. That'd be fine too.
I think that's it :)
For a browser that did this, and was properly audited to prevent anything shady from creeping in, I'd pay $30 a year for it.
Edit: To clarify - I wouldn't pay the current Mozilla a single penny!
So no crash logs or similar issues? Logging is seen as a subset of telemetry
I agree with most of your points but you missed out an important one: active lobbying to counteract or reduce google's dominance on the web. As long as Chrome reigns supreme, Firefox will always be playing catch up as Google can break the web for non chrome devices by regularly adding apis that are only in chrome and forcing devs to use them
I don't consider things like crash logs and debug stuff to be telemetry. This can easily be dealt with by a popup saying "want to upload the crash log?". It can just be a text file with a bunch of data.
I'm fine with that.
Telemetry to me is knowing what I'm doing, like clicking a button, using a feature etc. They record that shit! Also, sending data about my websites back to the mothership so they can sell ads (or sell to ad companies... same thing).
Fairs. But logging and similar is a type of telemetry. It is worth being clear about this stuff. And surely, you don't want to send logs only when your software crashes (which seems to be your proposal) as it might never crash. Not all software bugs lead to crashes. Doesn't mean they don't need investigation.
True. But there was a time when we managed to program software and not send every keystroke back to the mothership.
It's possible to have a daily/weekly/monthly popup that says "We've detected a few bugs over the last week, can we send the reports to the mothership?"
It's as simple as zipping the text files and sending them to an API endpoint.
I have no issue with this. Hell, you could even make it automatic where I can check a box that says "Automatically send weekly crash reports".
I have a massive issue with the devs thinking that it's ok to send telemetry back about every single thing I do in the software I've installed on MY computer so that they can "improve my experience" or whatever bullshit they use to justify it.
I agree with all of this with some minor modifications:
C-level compensation is not a problem unless it’s a problem. Linus Torvalds is compensated handsomely, and it’s okay, because he still delivers.
all the other Mozilla shit also isn’t a problem until it’s a problem. It’s a problem in Mozilla’s case because they neglect the browser.
I’ve switched to Orion by Kagi with their new Linux beta. It’s sadly WebKit, but with the increase in bullshit from Mozilla, the scales have tipped for me.
143 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubtWZwtJCdw
We need Web-next which would be clearly defined in proper primitives and features that don’t suck from the beginning and need no further extension. And a reference implementation of it in a clean way, even if not very performant. E.g. fine if it takes 50MB of RAM just to start and show a welcome tab. Implementors will optimize it later.
They should have gotten into privacy centric groupware a decade ago: thunderbird, collaboration office suite, calendar, tasks, etc all baked into Firefox ala nextcloud but with Mozilla polish.
I’d pay for that, instead they fuck around with VPNs and other stupid services that are harder to use than other products and not as good.
I’ll miss Mozilla when they’re gone but there will be no question as to why they’re gone.
https://donorbox.org/ladybird
I'll start (Receipt #: 51816267).
[1] https://itdm.com/mozilla-firefox-usage-down-85-but-why-are-e...
Any donations you send to Mozilla today go to the corporation and are not spent on the browser. They are spent on things that have nothing to do with the core mission of the maintaining the browser.
Nobody is allowed to fund Mozilla to maintain the browser, which is the actual question you're asking.
Much like Wikipedia, my donations depend on being able to donate to the actual engineers, and not to unrelated political advocacy.
"I can't be bothered to do my own thinking, here's what a computer said"
Yep. I even agree with most of the unrelated political advocacy, but I want to be able to donate for that to a different organization.
I figure it's either worth $0, or hundreds of $. I mean, sooo much whining about privacy and telemetry and ad-blocking but ultimately it's worth the same as a couple cups of coffee?
That seems to me to be a root question here. How much is privacy actually worth? The average number in this post seems about $20. So in real terms, nothing at all.
And yes, all of this is moot given that you can't donate to Firefox in the first place.
Still, for those starting a business, this is a excellent lesson- don't confuse volume with willingness to pay. Just because lots of people shout loudly about the size of their pain, don't just assume they'll pay real money to make it go away.
The corporation funds almost exclusively the browser.
The non-profit doesn't fund the browser.
And having a specific "donate to Firefox only" would probably end in disaster. They might end up in a situation where they're forced to waste money on Firefox because that's what the donations are for while not having enough money to keep the lights on in offices. For a fun example of what happens when you have fixed budgets that don't have any flexibility, Atlanta's MARTA was founded with an agreement providing public funding, with a fixed 50/50 split between capex and opex. So they found themselves with brand new trains because there's capex budget to spend, but falling apart infrastructure because 50% wasn't enough for opex.
The money flow between the for-profit that develops Firefox and the non-profit foundation is one-way: From for-profit to non-profit. This is because it is illegal for the non-profit to give money to the for-profit.
Any donations you make go to the non-profit. They are not used and cannot legally be used for Firefox development.
Edit to add: Mozilla chose this legal structure. Mozilla chooses to disallow donations or payments directly to the for-profit. For example, nothing prevents using a shareware model, where Firefox is free but you can choose to pay for it. And Mozilla chooses to avoid mentioning this structure when accepting donations from you.
I'd reason that there's no consensus on this at all. Some things might be perceived as good, some neutral or bad, and many might be perceived as well intended but ineffective.
No, I'm stating that it's good that Mozilla has non-Firefox activities and is trying to diversify. I've only used Pocket from them and it's good, but don't have an opinion on any of their other activities.
They have enough money that they could throw it all in the S&P 500 and maintain Firefox indefinitely off the growth. That’s what they should do.
I would not give a penny to a company that looks to sell me out.
Survival of Firefox is critical (as of now more than Mozilla) for the open web to remain open.
Mozilla was one of the first to accept crypto donations. Then some 3 years ago an ex-Mozilla employee posted a rant on Twitter on how this effectively makes Mozilla super evil. It went somewhat viral and Mozilla stopped accepting crypto.
To me this is a great example on how useless virtue-signaling is.
Nothing was improved. The crypto world happily moves on and you won't be getting part of that money. What a great win. But I guess it's fine to receive fiat money of which you don't have a clue either about its source.
If memory serves right, the biggest slice of expenses were in C-level compensations & shortlived pet projects. The organization has to focus on growing a cadre of good engineers and product teams for their core offerings (just like the ones who rewrote large chunks of Netscape code into a fledgling Firefox ~22y ago).
One can't be expected to donate just to eventually subsidize a penthouse purchase for the CEO or their swanky McLaren.
Their total expenses were ~$40M, and their CEO made over $6M in compensation. So out of a $100 donation, $16 goes directly into the CEO's pocket.
The total compensation for their top 10 employees is close to $10M. They all are President of this and VP of that and Director of thus--my strong guess is none of them write Firefox code. So $24 of your $100 go into their pockets.
1: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-fo...
It was the day I switched to Brave and never looked back.
It just says his actions reinforced white supremacy, and you've got to admit, white supremacists do love Trump, and they specifically love him because of the words he says and the actions he takes.
If I missed the part where Mozilla wanted to put anyone into mass graves, please point it out to me.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13079982-fahrenheit-451
You misunderstand the comparison for some reason. Mitchell Baker called for an active suppression of not only those who partook of the January 6th riots but also those who were in any way connected to the political movement which gave birth to those riots as well as to 'amplify factual voices' which translates to 'propagandise for our ideology'. That is emphatically not what I want any technology vendor to do. If the likes of Baker get their way there'll be a need for samizdat [1] to circumvent the Baker Browser Brigade. As to whether the Baker Brigades may end up putting people in mass graves I'll leave for you to decide but if history is anything to go by the chance of that happening is definitely not zero. It happened in many countries which underwent revolutions based on the same ideology. They don't need to resort to mass murder to make the proposed censorship, political persecution and propaganda campaigns bad omens for their intentions.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/technology/samizdat
When you've gotten to the point that you interpret "fact" as "ideology", and the mere mention of "fact" leads you to believe a browser vendor wants to put you into a mass grave, then there is clearly no point in continuing conversation. I hope that someday you get over your martyr complex.
But on the way out, whatever happened to AOC's kill list, or the death camps the Covid cops were going to send everyone to, or the FEMA camps Obama was going to send everyone to? I'm sure Biden was going to do something too but all of these nefarious plots against Christians, Conservatives, white people and Trumpists are hard to keep up with. The way they try to clout-chase victimhood from the very demographics they've traditionally oppressed is getting kind of pathetic.
Good day.
Why do you mean by "you"?
I bet there would be plenty companies who would give money to mozilla to improve their browser and at least answer their demands.
I don't really know the mozilla company as a whole and how it's managed, but in my view there might be some things that could be removed from mozilla, like trim the fat. I have the feeling a lot of marketing people have entered mozilla, and I don't like it.
I want an answer to the question "how many software engineers and UX people are involved in the process of developing firefox".
Just let users and especially companies tell mozilla what it wants in firefox, and go from there.
I don't know how many people are paid for the services like sync, pocket, VPN, etc, and if those services are profitable to keep them.
I think an open web is critical to our society. I think Chrome is the new IE and that Google cannot be trusted with controlling the engine of essentially every browser besides Firefox.
I have disposable income and would pay every month to support it…but only if Mozilla had new management. I have zero trust in Mozilla’s management and feel that most money given to them would be wasted rather than used for browser development.
1. Zero telemetry. I mean ZERO: remove all telemetry code from the codebase. They can ask me about features the old-fashioned way - surveys!
2. Focus on privacy and security. Put these to the top of the list.
3. Stop paying your CEO millions! Not worth it imo!
4. Stop with all the other Mozilla shit! I am interested in a browser (and perhaps an email client... I'll let you work on that too!). No more Pocket, VPN and all that other shite.
5. ZERO, I mean ZERO data capture at all! Nothing. Not a single bit except when someone clicks the link to download Firefox, you can capture their userAgent and whatnot. But the browser, Firefox, should not be capturing a single byte of data from me once installed (except perhaps a periodic version check and you can pass in the version like this: https://firefox.com/update?v=123.568).
6. For sync, allow me to sync an encrypted file to Dropbox, OneDrive, Local drive, Whatever.com. That way my passwords, bookmarks etc. can be sync'd from MY location that I control, not yours!).
7. Have a "Block all shady JS tactics" button. This would include fingerprinting, location and such. Perhaps you could send bogus, random data when it's asked for instead. That'd be fine too.
I think that's it :)
For a browser that did this, and was properly audited to prevent anything shady from creeping in, I'd pay $30 a year for it.
Edit: To clarify - I wouldn't pay the current Mozilla a single penny!
So no crash logs or similar issues? Logging is seen as a subset of telemetry
I agree with most of your points but you missed out an important one: active lobbying to counteract or reduce google's dominance on the web. As long as Chrome reigns supreme, Firefox will always be playing catch up as Google can break the web for non chrome devices by regularly adding apis that are only in chrome and forcing devs to use them
I'm fine with that.
Telemetry to me is knowing what I'm doing, like clicking a button, using a feature etc. They record that shit! Also, sending data about my websites back to the mothership so they can sell ads (or sell to ad companies... same thing).
That's what I mean when I talk about telemetry.
True. But there was a time when we managed to program software and not send every keystroke back to the mothership.
It's possible to have a daily/weekly/monthly popup that says "We've detected a few bugs over the last week, can we send the reports to the mothership?"
It's as simple as zipping the text files and sending them to an API endpoint.
I have no issue with this. Hell, you could even make it automatic where I can check a box that says "Automatically send weekly crash reports".
I have a massive issue with the devs thinking that it's ok to send telemetry back about every single thing I do in the software I've installed on MY computer so that they can "improve my experience" or whatever bullshit they use to justify it.
It's time for that to stop.
C-level compensation is not a problem unless it’s a problem. Linus Torvalds is compensated handsomely, and it’s okay, because he still delivers.
all the other Mozilla shit also isn’t a problem until it’s a problem. It’s a problem in Mozilla’s case because they neglect the browser.
I’ve switched to Orion by Kagi with their new Linux beta. It’s sadly WebKit, but with the increase in bullshit from Mozilla, the scales have tipped for me.
Crazy: The Orion iOS app has adblock.
Orion ios built on WebKit supports Firefox addons but Firefox own WebKit browser does not.