I found brave to be a little slow. Just installed Pale Moon last night and it's fast. Both have the refresh button on the left and I'm used to it on the right with firefox. Then of course there's Opera which has been around forever but it's slow for me. I run Ubuntu, not windows so ymmv.
Time to abandon mozilla.
Need a new mail client other than Thunderbird, too.
vivaldi is a very good browser ...
Where were these Bold Defenders of the Constitution the past 8 years?
firefox is suppose to be protective of the user, not selective of what we can see nor blocking our access to sites based on their “models” for what is true or not true...bad bad news...someone has their leadership in the cross hairs with intimidating pics too !
Through the initiative, Mozilla plans to forge partnerships to develop technology combatting misinformation . . .
So IOW, no more quotes or info from the DNC, Clintons, Obamas, slimes, compost, rooters, et al
That’s EZ enough even for the fascists at mozilla
I remember how Mozilla treated its cofounder when he went off the libdiot reservation by giving money to the pro-heterosexual marriage campaign in California. If Mozilla is fighting ‘fake news’ it is most likely to be censoring from left to right, giving the benefit of the doubt to the former and withholding it from the latter.
I’ve used Brave for many months and it’s the best browser I’ve ever used.
It updates often, so if yours is slow make sure you have the latest version. Mine updated last week and is smoking fast.
Thanks for posting the links on Brave and Pale Moon. I looked into switching and downloaded Brave. I found the above article helpful.
I removed all Mozilla products from my computer, when they fired their new CEO, just because he once opposed same-sex marriage. Are the Gaystapo still controlling that company?
The company who quickly fired their CEO when it was found out he’d donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign years before wants to combat “fake news”. I’m sure there won’t be any bias here /sarc
Those like Google, Facebook, Mozilla et al CANNOT EVER play both roles of (1) neutral, unbiased gatekeepers and (2) biased not neutral “protectors of the truth”.
Any “techies” thinking THEY can identify “fake news” and/or “misinformation” have to follow the mold of Snopes, as OUTSIDERS to those places where folks go to get information, which is search engines and major social media sites.
The Google, Mozilla, Facebook supposed “good intentions” can ONLY become something akin to the information trimming, redacting, limiting, rewriting, deleting information machine run by Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984.
It appears we'll have to wait quite awhile for the results of this study. Darn, I was so looking forward to it.
Hmm... I don’t use Mozilla, but I see the icon down there in the corner of my screen. I wonder how it got there.
If done intelligently, this might not be that bad. Put another horizontal bar, a thin one, with buttons across it.
For a story that hasn’t propagated much, most of the buttons should be blank. Users should be able to designate websites willing to vote on stories, but only if they think it is legitimate (button turns green) or fake (button turns red).
Users could then quickly see how the story is rated.
Of course, *some* uses would want “balanced” vetting, so they need a list of those sites willing to vet that they can choose from.
From either a conservatives or leftists or “balanced” point of view, if when they bring up an article, if its thin bar’s buttons are blank, the story is too new to have been widely seen. If it is all, or mostly green, it is likely good. And it is is mostly red, it is likely fake.
Users might also be able to “up vote” or “down vote” a story themselves, showing as two numbers in the middle of the thin bar. And both websites and users should be able to change their votes based on new information.
Palemoon is Mozilla in every way that counts. And its leaky.
Mozilla is tied to the Ford Foundation and data mining everything you do with it despite what they say.
Bad idea.