Calling it now, let's see in a couple of years how deep the state really is.
These moves keep happening in tech all the time. Slippery slope fallacy doesn't work here - if you see something that looks like slippery slope in a tech business, it almost definitely is one.
Quite frankly i feel like every time a web browser is mentioned on hn, everyone reaches to weird conspiracies.
No, because there is no conspiracy needed. Chrome is a product of an adtech company, and Firefox is funded by the very same one. Mozilla is at best fighting a losing battle here, forced to make concessions to survive. Or, it could be argued that Firefox exists only to serve as an antitrust shield for Google.
I disagree
> Or, it could be argued that Firefox exists only to serve as an antitrust shield for Google.
That might well be why google funds them. I can’t say I mind, and it doesn’t make them more user-unfriendly.
Mozilla or Google?
If Mozilla: Do you think that Mozilla would think of their users' privacy if it meant alienating Google and loosing their money? I'm not picking a side here - I have no idea so I'm just asking.
Yes. One example is tracking protection, which blocks Google Analytics on every FF installation by default.
But there are valid technical reasons to support DNR. It really does make more sense from a performance point of view, if it happens to support what you need. If not, then it's good to have blocking web requests available. And there's good reason to be unhappy if Firefox drops them. I don't see any strong incentives for doing so, though.
You actually got it in your first paragraph - for me, it's a trust issue. I don't trust Mozilla to retain web request blocking, particularly when DNR becomes established in Firefox and most extensions migrate: because then, the argument for removal web request blocking will be, "look, there's very few legitimate extensions using this, and it's a Huge Security Hole, and everyone standardized on DNR already".
Sounds to me like uBlock is literally top priority for Mozilla, so I don't see why they would do that.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/06/ublock-origin-for...
Then you can point to the source of widevine? Something that chrome developers called a core component when they where caught side loading it on dedicated open source distros a few years ago and initially refused to supply an option to disable it?
Which will stop accepting MV2 Extensions after the move to MV3
Therefore leaving you without a store again