Firefox is open source, but it's not an open source project. It's a Mozilla project --- effectively totally funded by Google.

*When* Google asks them to remove manifest v2, what do you think they'll do?

> When Google asks them to remove manifest v2, what do you think they'll do?

It’s even more pointless than removing it from Chromium though: Firefox users would just switch to a fork that still supports it, or to a fork that supports blockingWebRequest APIs on v3 extensions, or to a fork that implements some other ad blocking method. With Chromium, they at least have Chrome users, many of whow wouldn’t want to even bother. (Those who do have migrated to forks already)

Exactly. Manifest v2 is the bullet case for why Chromium isn't sufficient. Also, we best not forget their efforts with web integrity

Brave is based on Chromium and it still supports manifest v2.

https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/

Brave supports manifest V2 because the Chromium upstream hasn't removed it for enterprise use yet. As soon as that changes, Brave does not have a plan to continue maintaining V2. What you call Google payola is really the independence that allows Mozilla to develop a browser engine that isn't being actively crippled by Google's initiatives. That's the important piece. Brave is not a sustainable play because they have no way to fund a forked version of the chromium browser engine when Google inevitably cripples it to invade our privacy even further.

Safari's extensions had a similar change-over to a ManifestV3-like system, with the same arguments: increases performance (very important for mobile) and puts more safeguards on extensions doing funky privacy-hostile stuff.

Yes, ManifestV3 nerfs adblocking, and Google loves that side effect. It will hamper Brave' internal adblocking engine.

I think the big interesting question is: if Brave figures out how to add improvements to ManifestV3 that aid adblocking without sacrificing performance or privacy/security, will Google accept the PRs?

Brave's internal ad-blocker is custom-made and doesn't depend on manifest v2.

Brave doesn't support multi-account containers.

Just make a new profile like all chromium based browser

Can you use accounts just like Firefox containers? E.g. use right click to choose opening a link in a new tab running a different account?

Genuine question from a FF user.

No, it's inferior in every way possible because it's not meant to be used to enforce privacy but to allow multiple users on a same computer to use a same browser without seeing each other history and setting.

For each profile, you would have to install again every extension, set every setting, every bookmark,.. of course no sync between your main profile and others.

Can't right click on link to open them in another profile.

No automatic opening of profiles when you go on a specific url

And so on.

On the other hand, brave will push it's crypto crap, web3 and 'bat coins' everywhere.

The founder of Brave, Brendan Eich, had a very interesting tenure as CEO of Mozilla, resulting in his stepping down. For me, I can't support a product founded by someone who can work along side the same people he wanted keep oppressed. The same way I can't shop at Walmart because they don't pay a living wage.

If you're interested in Brave, and social issues affect your choice in who or who not to support - check his wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich

Brave is run by a VC-funded company and will need to show returns eventually. To date, they've tried to make money in a few disappointing ways:

- Replacing ads on pages without owner's intervention, under the guise that they were offering owners a cryptocurrency

- Inserting their own referral codes on websites

- Installing their VPN software on Windows machines without consent

They also introduced a Tor mode into their browser that sent DNS requests unmasked to your ISP. I don't know why you would trust Brave at this point.

It's cheaper to extend v3 with additional features than to maintain another browser engine.

It is. Browser engine diversity is important for a myriad of other reasons, though.

That makes no sense. Define "open source project".

Do you think that in open source there's no ownership?