Oh good they’ve protected me from the evil AI that they chose on their own to introduce. I am immensely thankful
Come on this is pathetic, They’re the ones that cause the problem in the first place. They don’t get credit for correcting their own messes.
I’ve already switched over to LibreWolf a month or two ago. Clean, simple, and it just works.
Feels a bit snappier too, but that could just be the clean profile
Mozilla has released so many self-described AI features in the past few years, but this is the only one that has:
- been requested by the community
- received broad critical acclaim
I hope Mozilla learns their lesson. I doubt they will, but I hope.
I think they’re desperate to make money since they’re losing userbass AND Google is probably not happy that most users change the default search engine away from them.
Does anyone really think the current administration is going to break up Google? Lina Khan almost did it but like most of the rest of this timeline we just didn’t quite get there
sadly I’ll likely support them through any shitty decisions they make as they are the only viable non-chromium alternative these days.
I get they’re chasing the buck and trying to stay relevant, but uhhhh… if they could be less Steve Buscemi-teen about it, that’d be great.
I recommend Waterfox
They have pledged to not fill their browser with AI slop features.
Last time I tried Waterfox some sites like Twitch that actively block usage on old browsers, refused to work because the latest Waterfox release was based on a Firefox like 20+ builds behind.
Firefox was on like version 142 and the latest Waterfox download was based on build 128.
Waterfox right now is built on ESR 148, which is on par with the latest Firefox release! ESR releases will lag several versions behind, but that’s normal (even on Mozilla’s side), and I’d be kind of shocked if it was such a big gap
Edit: maybe it was such a big gap.
I strongly believe that the EU should fund Mozilla, or a fork of Firefox.
Gecko is the only viable competitor to Blink/WebKit, and it is needed
Govts around the world should be funding all sorts of FOSS projects. I know they do to some degree but not much. It benefits the whole world and only hurts big tech.
That prospect becomes less and less likely the more government is bought and paid for by Big Tech.
Funding FF? Maybe. Funding Mozilla? No way, not with my money.
This is probably common knowledge to you and many others, but it bears repeating: You cannot donate to fund the development of Mozilla Firefox.
Google can, unfortunately.
Ladybird browser looks promising!
The ladybird devs are currently in the process of switching language again from Swift to Rust, using LLMs.
Yup. Don’t use or support Ladybird, especially since it’s made by anti-inclusivity “keep your ‘political’ gender-neutral pronouns out of our READMEs” nerdbros.
On the other hand, Servo is coming along nicely.
Problem is Mozilla needs money and shoving AI features into shit is how you get investors these past few years.
You think VC is putting money into firefox? Wtf?
Funnily enough, it’s the other way around: Mozilla has been dumping money into AI VC startups.
I personally don’t HATE ai but I don’t want it in my browser or email or anything like that. I have a local llm I use for random stuff all the time but I don’t need or want a company viewing everything I’m doing, adding buttons in places I’m likely to accidentally push, or training their shit on my dumb behavior. ai has destroyed much of the Internet already to the point that you almost need to use an llm in order to get any useful information during a search. Otherwise you’re just filtering through ai generated webpages with the highest seo possible.
I’m curious, what do you use that local LLM for?
My typical reason is I need to sound less casual than I am in professional emails. Or I’ll ramble. I don’t copy paste but I’ll write an email in my normal tone, let the llm look at it and then fix it up. I’ve also used it to help me find new books when I’m in a draught. List ones I like and it’ll spit out suggestions. Today I couldn’t figure out a website issue so I copied and pasted the html and it generated a snippet of css for me that fixed the problem.
Search pages, they removed easy answers to questions from the search pages, the summaries just list part of the question and then… and you either have to click on those websites, usually garbage webistes written to hit those results not be useful, restating the question every which way, saying the same questions in different ways to hit the results, they will keep restating different forms of a question in different manners; then they will explain in exhaustive detail why someone would want to know the answer to that question, then give you a two sentence answer buried deep in the page if you can even find it.
Almost all of them written by machines, and ai themselves. But the only answer on the search page is now the AI summary, it’s presumably their way of forcing us to use it.
I started using Zen Browser, it’s a fork of FF. Sick of this Mozilla nonsense
WaterFox
Also, the kill switch does not fully remove the AI slop. Remember to uncheck perplexity from the search engine list, and also uncheck AI suggested tab group name.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
The problem still remains: why’s this thing “opt-out” and not “opt-in”? Why not make it an official, totally optional (as in voluntarily wanting to have it and, only then, proceeding to have it) plug-in or extension that the user (let us remember the meaning of “User Agent”: an agent acting on behalf of the user, not a piece of software who’s become “the user”) could install at any moment, out of their own will?
I’m far from being an anti-AI person, I myself use those clankers on a daily basis. However, I use them because I want to, while I still want to, not because they were pushed unto me.
Mechanisms of “opt-out” where there should be an “opt-in” is a form of dark pattern.
In fact, the very concept of “opting-out” is a dark pattern per se, because it implies something pushed unto a person, something from which they were “allowed” the “right to leave”.
Yeah, it’s awesome to have means of “opting-out” from something, but having an “opt-out” mechanism in place doesn’t mitigate the very fact that it was coercively pushed unto the person beforehand and didn’t require explicit consent from the person unto which the thing was pushed.
Speaking of “consent”, situations like these are not that much different from the dark pattern “Yes / Not now” we’ve been seen everywhere: in certain scenarious, this insistence and disregard for explicit consent would verge the criminal (e.g. harassment), but suddenly it’s “okay” when corporations (and the State itself) do it.
If, say, a situation where someone is being harassed and, only after having started to harass, the harasser offers the harassed a means to leave the harassment, does this make the harasser less of a harasser? Because that’s the same absurd logic behind the corporate advocacy whenever it’s said “oh, but Mozilla is offering an opt-out, you can always turn off ‘sponsored shortcuts’ (that is, after having been faced by the shortcut from a Jeff Bezos corp as you proceeded to open a new tab for accessing the opting-out settings, but that’s totally okay), ‘sponsored wallpapers’, and the ‘Anonym tracking’, and now you can, check this out, you can turn off the clankers, too! Wow, isn’t that such a cute corp, the corp with the cute fiery fox mascot?”.
Not to say how it’s gonna end up cluttering the upstream with (more) binary blobs, adding to the Sisyphean struggle that WaterFox, IronFox, LibreWolf, Fennec, among other Firefox forks, have been experiencing upon trying to de-enshittificate the enshittificated and de-combobulate the combobulated.
“Mozilla needs to make money”. Yeah, yeah, because the very fundamental, immutable principle of cosmic existence boils down to “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”, amirite? After all, “money” is clearly within the table of elementary particles alongside quarks and gluons, isn’t it? And Mozilla needs to make money… We had a tool for that: it’s called donations.
If it’s opt-in it may as well not exist. For whatever reason, they have decided it’s important.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
If it’s opt-in it may as well not exist
Just because if it were opt-in, people wouldn’t have chosen to activate it, and fewer people would use it and the graph line wouldn’t go up for the shareholders to appreciate? Then, maybe, just maybe, it would be quite a strong evidence that this isn’t really something that the users want, don’t ya think?
For whatever reason, they have decided it’s important.
There’s the reason, right above this paragraph: one can only achieve what people would certainly refuse, if they pushed it onto people by use of force (not necessarily physical force, but, for example, dark pattern is a technical means of “force”).
A fox can’t convince the roosters to become her food, if the roosters were to have a stake on deciding in this regard, less roosters would become a tasty dinner for the cute fox, because becoming a tasty dinner isn’t exactly a demand from roosters. Hence why the fox must grab the roosters, but in this case the fox gives them an option to escape from her paws.
Ah, notice your own phrasing: “They have decided”. Who have decided? Not the user, not the party interested in their own UX/UI, but the very archontic architects of a kind of digital apparatus we’ve been compelled to use for participating in this digital realm of society (risking social ostracism if we don’t), the World Wide Web.
And when a decision is made upon someone, without regard for the very someone upon which the decision is being made, even when there’s some kind of “opting out” from the object of decision, we had a name for that: it was called “non-consensual relationship”.
Just because if it were opt-in, people wouldn’t have chosen to activate it
Because people overwhelmingly do not change any defaults whatsoever, regardless of what they like or want.
If you put a button in the settings that did nothing but automatically generate a $5 bill, no one would click that either.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Because people overwhelmingly do not change any defaults whatsoever
Most roosters wouldn’t normally seek the paws of the fox to be hugged by, what an astonishing news!
You see, that’s exactly what plays favorably for things pushed with “opt-out” mechanisms, anything. If people are less likely to change the settings to better enhance their UX (be it due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of proactive pursuit or because they deem their current settings “good enough”), this means people would be more likely to have the clankers shoved down their throats if said clankers were to be part of default settings.
In fact, if settings would very likely go unchanged, then Mozilla could push anything, absolutely anything under they will, “shall be the whole of the Law” with the legally-required “opt-out” mechanisms in place.
In the foreseeable future, we’d have Firefox as a new “Agentic Browser” where a clanker does all the tiring and utterly boring effort of “browsing the web” as the user watches their credit card being depleted by prompt injections carefully placed amidst Unicode exploits across the web by scammers. But, hey, let us not worry, there’s always a button to turn it off! 😄
Most roosters wouldn’t normally seek the paws of the fox to be hugged by, what an astonishing news!
Whoosh. The point is “the roosters” don’t seek anything at all. It could be 50 lbs. of delicious cow shit, but if you don’t put it down in front of them, they’re not going to go looking for it.
Please read my comments in their entirety before replying.
Other than link previews all the features they are opt-in in the sense you’d have to actually use the feature.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
I’m not referring only to the feature per se, I’m also referring to any pop-up designed to appear throughout the navigation to “remind the user about the superb features”.
Said pop-up is explicitly mentioned on their “confirmation dialog” upon turning off (screenshot attached below):
You won’t see new or current AI enhancements in Firefox, or pop-ups about them.
It speaks volumes about how much a dark pattern this is, the fact that the opt-off has a confirmation dialog, while the further proceeding with logging in with Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/Meta account doesn’t seem to have a confirmation dialog.
And the fact that the confirmation feels “menacing” and defaulted to cancelling the opting-off (i.e. pressing “esc” or clicking outside the window; one must click the primary-colored “block” button which, contrasted to a grayish “Cancel” button, may psychologically induce the user into thinking “block” is a dangerous action), quite similar to the
about:configwarning screen.Ah, and the clanker options: notice the lack of alternative options for those who want a custom clanker, such as DeepSeek, Qwen, Z AI, Brazilian Maritaca IA and Amazônia IA (to mention some non-Chinese LLMs), or even something running locally through ollama. Seemingly no option for using a custom, possibly self-hosted LLM endpoint. The fact that all the options offered are all heavily corporate options (with Mistral being the “least corporate” of them all, but still Global Northern nonetheless) might tell us something…
All of these dark patterns, among others not mentioned, are the object of my critique, not just the fact that Mozilla is shoving clankers unto Firefox.
Whenever a feature needs an invasive pop-up and the opt-out brings up a second pop-up that requires further confirmation (but none seems to be offered upon actually using said feature), it is called a dark pattern, no matter if said feature requires further configuration.
And the fact that the confirmation feels “menacing” and defaulted to cancelling the opting-off (i.e. pressing “esc” or clicking outside the window; one must click the primary-colored “block” button which, contrasted to a grayish “Cancel” button, may psychologically induce the user into thinking “block” is a dangerous action), quite similar to the about:config warning screen.
I don’t think it’s menacing at all. It gives an informative list of features, which is nice to know. I could see a lot of people wanting to turn off all AI then realizing they actually want local translate instead of sending everything to google.
And you’ve got the button intents mixed up. Primary color is always the encouraged action in that kind of design. Dark pattern would be if the colors were flipped.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
When we develop a system (I used to work as a DevOps for almost 10 years), the technical aspects aren’t the only aspects being accounted for: especially when it comes to the front-end (i.e. the UI the user sees, the UX how user interaction will happen and how it may be perceived by them), psychology (especially behaviorism) is sine qua non.
Shapes and colors often carry archetypal meanings: a red element feels “dangerous”, a window with a yellow triangle icon feels to be “warning” about something, a green button feels “okayish”. I mean, those are the exact same principles behind traffic lights.
And signs and symbols, ruling the world, don’t exist in a vacuum: a colored button besides a monochromatic button may, psychologically, lead to a feeling that the colored button is the proper way to proceed.
But… there’s a twist: imagine you have a light-gray “Cancel” and a colored (regardless of the color) “Block”. “Block” is a strong word. The length of the label text also does impart psychological effects. The human brain may see: “huh, I have this button which reads ‘block’ and it’s quite strong, and this other button which reads ‘cancel’ and it’s more easy to the eyes, maybe ‘block’ is dangerous”. Contrast matters: the comparison between a substrate and the substances is pretty much how we’re wired to navigate this world as living beings.
Now, corporations such as Apple (Safari), Google (Chromium), and very likely Mozilla (Firefox) as well, they have entire hordes of psychologists directly working for them, likely the same psychologists who’ll work together with their HR departments for evaluating the candidates who applied for a job position there. These psychologists, and/or psychoanalysts, they know about Jungian archetypes, they know about fight-or-flight response and other facets of our deeply-ingrained instincts, they know about how colors are generally perceived by the human brain. Those psychologists likely played a role when a brand was chosen, or when an advertisement pitch was made. They know what they’re doing.
UX/UI decisions are far from random choices from the leading team of project management engineers, it involved designers with psychologists. Again: they know what they’re doing, they know it pretty well. They know how the users are likely to keep the functionality. They know how the users, as Ulrich said, are very unlikely to touch the settings, likely to keep the defaults, no matter what those defaults are. Because they know humans are driven by the “least-effort” instinct, which is quite of a fundamental principle shared among living beings as a byproduct of the “lowest energetic point” (thermodynamic equilibrium) principle.
To me, a former full-stack developer, the newer Firefox interfaces don’t feel like Firefox is being psychologically fair and honest with the user’s mind. Dark patterns are often subtle, and they’re part of a purposeful, corporate decision.
all you have to do is click on Settings > AI Controls. You’ll then see a very bold and prominent option called ‘Block AI Enhancements.’
I don’t see it on mobile though.
I can’t see it either.
I’m on 147.0.4 but there’s no option to update it on play store.
How can I update it to 148?I just opened setting on a firefox tab on my computer, clicked on the three lines in the upper right, and the settings. There is not AI controls in there, and searching settings didn’t pull up any ai thing.
This is like when I tried to take gemini off of my phone, it’s hidden, instructions online didn’t work, the links didn’t exist on my phone. It’s still on there, but hasn’t turned itself on multiple times when I somehow swiped or hit something as it did a year ago or so a bunch.
It should be opt in not work to opt out and we hid the way to do that.
Maybe the article was written by AI that hallucinated the setting.
I can vouch for the page being there on my Firefox 148 on the desktop.
Huh, maybe I need to wait for firefox to update or for me to restart the computer if they just did it. I’m also running an older version of windows I think, I don’t even know which one actually but they tried to upgrade me for free and I told them no a couple of years back.
I think they just did it. Menu > Help > About will tell you if you’re on 148 and probably help you update if you want.
I was also presented with a giant “you can opt out of AI” tab after I updated.
On Android or iOS? I’m pretty sure the iOS app is just a re-skinned Safari, isn’t it?
Depends where you. In some places (I think it was Japan?) Apples practice of not allowing alternative browser engines was deemed anticompetitive and outlawed
Same in Europe but I don’t think Mozilla spent the time and effort needed to bring Gecko to iOS. So it’s still just a reskinned WebKit.
Well there you go. Hopefully they get around to overthrowing the mobile webkit overlords soon enough
It is!? Noooooooo! TIL
All iOS browsers are webkit under the hood (aka “reskinned safari”)
To be fair to most people who use phones, I don’t think they understand what a browsing engine is, let alone a browser half the time. I got my family to use Firefox, and they don’t know it’s a browser either.
Are you on FF148?
Supposedly. Says 148 in About.
I’m going to unblock telemetry just long enough for them to see me hit this kill switch
The Translation feature seems to be classified under AI. Idk what technology does it actually use, but it’s done locally on device
They’re using something that technically is AI, but it was broadly never marketed as such, because it was built before “AI” became a marketing buzzword.
Yeah saw this morning, turned the kill switch on immediately.
Wait so where is this AI on my firefox? I haven’t seen anything, is it running by default, and what’s it doing?
How do I shut it down then? Everyone hates AI so I don’t understand what mozilla had to gain by bringing in AI, or what they had it doing in the first place?
- Local translation which only happens when you trigger it I believe (and is cool)
- Smart tab groups which i don’t think anyone cares about and only happens when you ask it to
- Link previews which I think happens on link hover which is undesirable if you don’t want to accidentally do it (edit: see correction in reply)
- A sidebar chatbot integration which you’d have to use on purpose
- Someone said perplexity in search engine options which you’d have to do on purpose
Link previews happen if you hold click on a link or choose it in the right click menu. By default it shows pretty much just the title of the page and a banner asking you to enable ai summaries.
It’s kinda annoying, but not because of the ai. And you can easily disable it
Everyone hates AI so I don’t understand what mozilla had to gain by bringing in AI
Same as everyone else
FTA
If you don’t want to see AI on Firefox anymore, all you have to do is click on Settings > AI Controls. You’ll then see a very bold and prominent option called ‘Block AI Enhancements.’ Hit that, and every AI tool gets disabled.
