Hur Dur Privacy. Mozilla doesn't care about care their users

Shit that it recommended me.

Attached: Capture+_2018-05-15-08-04-57.png (720x708, 61K)

It really is considering the fact that every other alternative doesn't allow you turning off analytics. Nice try shills.

>Still using furryshitfox a browser now developed and maintenanced and updated by Indian niggers

What are you using?
>inb4 some shitty firefox fork

>having analytics in the first place
great privacy respecting browser you got there

Go sit in the corner Mozilla.

Name a fully featured web-browser that doesn't collect any of your data.

This, I wonder (((who))) would be interested in undermining Mozilla's efforts to return power over user data to the users

GNU Icecat

icecat

Yeah, it's absolute shit and basically useless, even for the average normie, kind of surprising since pocket has been around for years now
GNU IceCat benefits from Mozilla and Tor Project efforts on privacy, like fingerprinting protection and first party isolation from the Tor uplift, and containers from Mozilla
You have to remember that it is a fork from Firefox, it depends on upstream and benefits from privacy efforts from upstream

>You have to remember that it is a fork from Firefox, it depends on upstream and benefits from privacy efforts from upstream
If Mozilla cared about user privacy telemetry would be off by default and strictly opt-in - users would have to explicitly choose to turn some option on to send any data at all back to Mozilla. And Mozilla would say "Well, yes, that gets us much less data, and only a biased sample of it, but that's a necessary sacrifice in order to protect user privacy". If Mozilla cared about user privacy they'd be a lot more aggressive in trying to fuck with not just trackers, but advertising in general. For instance, Firefox wouldn't just have a few things that make fingerprinting harder, they'd actively block Google analytics and other popular analytics packages - or, better, return deliberately false data in order to poison the stats of any website using it. They wouldn't be putting ads of any kind on the new tab page, they'd be including uBlock Origin in the default install. They'd be actively trying to undermine the ad-funded web, instead of trying to cut deals with it and thinking they can make it somehow not inherently evil.

Really they should have been doing all this ten years ago before Chrome existed, when their 40+% market share would have forced ad companies like Google to put up and shut up.

10 years ago tracking was barely a thing, and fingerprinting didn't really exist outside of academic settings
Yeah, they lean a lot on convenience instead of going full AdNauseum on everyone, they make this sacrifices to retain their user base instead of everyone else flocking away because some of the aggressive privacy settings break more than half of the popular sites
The proof that Mozilla cares about privacy is the simple existence of settings and tools that improve privacy massively, Firefox (and most forks) are the only browsers that allow a highish degree of privacy with some tweaks

Is there a better alterative than opt out firefox for best security and privacy?

>Not having that stuff disabled
Use github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js/blob/master/user.js

Not really.

Waterfox

but this is in js....

>mozilla-firefox-pocket
>It's another "retard doesn't know about extensions.pocket.enabled" episode!

Attached: TheOppositeOfHappiness.png (576x432, 172K)

With that answer alone, this is why firecuck will never be relevant again.

Attached: 1528905858465.jpg (477x474, 46K)

>memerson mcmemefag

Attached: image.jpg (512x512, 157K)

To the trash with you, tech illiterate.

Attached: NiceJoke2.png (112x112, 15K)

>
>Name a fully featured web-browser that doesn't collect any of your data.

Waterfox.

Attached: george-soros-640x480.jpg (640x480, 35K)