This is reductio-ad-absurdum. Follow the money - how much money does Mozilla make from Pocket - probably a small % of their overall revenue. How much money does Google make from Ads? Close to 90%.

Well, Mozilla's revenue is also 99.9% ads. It just comes indirectly from search engines.

Most of the issues I've had with Chrome can't be changed with flags. Do you have anything to back up that statement?

I was thinking of the recent controversy. What else is there?

During the controversy, the only relevant flag didn't actually disable the behavior.

Are you asking for a list of everything people complain about with chrome?

Yes, a quick web search shows you:

chrome://flags/

Also, there is Chromium:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-vaapi-bin/

What.

I was asking for evidence that the main things people complain about can be changed with flags.

And your answer is "Flags exist."?

You didn't provide any specifics, so you got a generic answer.

A generic answer to the wrong question.

I asked for evidence for the claim that list X matches list Y. You linked to list Y, which is both trivial to find and useless by itself.

> Most of the issues I've had with Chrome can't be changed with flags. Do you have anything to back up that statement?

Until you specify what those features are, all one can do is show you where to change flags. Now you've resorted to using letters to tell me. Do not compute.

Let me quote "that statement".

> People have been bitching about Chrome too, and those things they were bitching about can also be disabled using flags.

That is what I asked for evidence of, the things most people are complaining about being fixable with flags. I didn't ask for evidence of my own issues.

It would be much easier for you to give an example of a major problem people have with Chrome that can't be fixed with a flags, rather than ask them to exhaustively list issues that can be fixed with flags. It's not a very reasonable ask IMO. If you think they're wrong, just show your cards.

My own list isn't very long, which is why I want to know what nahalz was basing their argument on. I think it would work better than me searching from scratch. But I know you can't change the UI around and no flags will help those many issues. There was a flag I used once to good results that later got removed, but I don't remember what it was. They've been messing around with autoplay and flash with no way to override. Especially obnoxious is that if you directly visit a .swf it's impossible to make it play. I'll try to remember the rest.

On the plus side a bit of testing just now has made me aware that "site per process" and "process per site" do nearly opposite things, and the one that saves memory does actually still function. (The flag is the one I don't want, though, heh.)

Agreed, the way people talk crap about Chromium while pushing Firefox seems disingenuous.

It's just fucking laughable how Firefox apologists disregard Firefox showing you Pocket ads in the home page, or sending your private data to Cliqz (yes yes I know they had to disable that after the outrage) and then saying "well hurr if you don't like it then disable it". So, the same way you can disable things in Chrome. When they get out of arguments, they say "you can't trust Google won't fuck up again". But can you trust the Mozilla Corporation!?

Yes yes I would also love to see a browser made by someone who cares about your privacy, but thus far this is what we have.

Try out brave or vivaldi. Getting good reviews. Also try ungoogled chrome.

I'm really happy with Chromium with proper HW acceleration:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-vaapi-bin/