Hacker News Reader

So much for the browser being a user agent.

We'll have to run our own fork of Chromium, just to run uBO. And that makes sense: it's strange to call a browser supplied by an ad company a "user agent".

Except that that's what a browser is supposed to be, according to all the web specs and security models -- an agent who acts for the user and on the user's authority.

Troy citizens also believed that if something is called a horse and looks like a horse, then it's obviously a horse and can't be anything else, especially when it's given for free.

I think we’re arguing the same thing... my point though is that when a browser ceases to act on users’ behalf then users should withdraw trust from it.

Forking Chromium is likely an unsustainable proposition unless backed by a large corp (or VC/philanthropy money) and a value proposition non-tech people can understand.

What about Brave? Any idea what their stance is on this?

Brave's business model is also about ads.

I'd be happy if Firefox were a modified version of Chromium for developers/power-users/hackers that prioritized every feature in the user's interest (at their own risk).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com