I needed to reinstall Firefox on this computer, so I started up Chrome to download the latest version and it blocked the download as unsafe! I had to manually tell it to download anyway.

Fuck Chrome. I’m glad I only used it to download one file and went back to Firefox.

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Remember when the meme was about Internet Explorer?

    IE: What is my purpose?

    Me: You download Chrome!

    IE: Oh…my god!

    Now Chrome isn’t trusted. Even duck duck go is getting dubious. It seems there’s almost nowhere to turn. Your data is their data, and if you dont like it, you can lump it.

      • omnomed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Basically microsoft has a deal with them which makes them give aggregate data to microsoft. Which led to this.

        P.S. : I am primarily still using ddg in case someone’s thinking I’m an anti or something.

          • greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            I use both SearX and LibreX alongside DDG and that helps with 99% of my daily search online.

            If I need to use Google for search, I do so in my tor browser.

              • greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                That looks great at first until I tried searching and I got hit with a low-res captcha asking me to choose pictures about minecraft because /g/tards bots are stressing the server. I don’t get that on SearX.

                Also, the server is in the US, privacy-wise, that’s quite bad.

            • Vt1984@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              The safety of tor browser is great, but I usually use the private mode of safari or firefox, I am lazy to wait for the tor… unless I do some important things.

              • greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Browser private modes are not really private, it’s just an isolated window that won’t save your search to the browser history. Google and other trackers would always link your private session back to you.

                Read Mozilla’s take on browser private modes.

                • Vt1984@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It’s just a balance between performance and safety. Everyone in different situations needs to consider whether it’s suitable for themselves to make different decisions. The most safe usage doesn’t always mean the best usage for every situation, OK?

          • Virtual Insanity @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn’t?

            I’m just a passing stranger that just happens to have good knowledge about a significant misunderstanding that happened a year ago.

            I don’t walk around with ‘sources’ to all of the knowledge I’ve ever gained hanging out of my back pocket.

            This is why “source?” posts are stupid and unreasonable, double so when in response to something where a source was never provided.

            Now… that all said, I do have a moment now that I didn’t have previously to provide additional information.

            This article… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31490515 …Is a starting point, and more info can be found with your own search.

            The basic gist was that it was claims DDG pass user data that could identify a user to Microsoft from searches, however this was never the case.

            I have to allegiance with DDG… they do an ok job. But I do indeed think it unfair they get continuously accused of wrongdoing, even still to this day as evidenced here.

            This is just another case of bad, negative or incorrect information getting more publicity than the facts.

            • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn’t?

              If you’re trying to debunk a myth or call someone’s BS, then yes a source should be your opening statement. Is it fair? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.

              With all that said thank you for providing the source. A very well written one it was. I am going to debunk this myth now too, if and when I see it.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Thanks. Sorry you feel providing a source for claims is unfair, but it is what it is.

              All I really needed was context, to be honest, in this particular case. I got that, so thanks again.

              • Virtual Insanity @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Asking for a source isn’t unreasonable in a more important setting.

                It’s more an issue that no one asks for source for the original accusation.

                It’s the kind of action that lets baseless and faulty accusations get more traction than the truth.

                • Victor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I think they were just curious and should’ve probably said “What happened? And do you possibly have a link to more information?” I don’t think they were questioning the claim, itself. That’s just my interpretation.

      • Skye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Eyy! You took the words out of my mouth! I don’t mind paying for a search engine if it’s good lol

  • nogooduser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    At work, we subscribe to Microsoft Defender so that we get a centralised view of potential security issues on people’s computers.

    It’s always saying that there’s something wrong with Chrome and it never alerts about the same issues that are almost certainly a problem with Edge.

    That’s mildly infuriating too.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Of course! With it’s ad-blocking features, Firefox threatens the Chrome/Alphabet profits! This cannot be legal in a free (to make profits) country! /s

  • ratman150@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    While this could be malice it just as likely could be a complete error. I recently had to download a tool related to x11 on Firefox on windows and it also blocked the download as unsafe. Weirder still, it did this every time I started Firefox until I ended up ditching windows. No idea why.

  • Vt1984@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Safari and Firefox are good enough for me, especially since I started using the SSD 3 years ago.

    And duckduckgo is good enough too instead of google.

    And the free RSS reader NetNewsWire is good enough for me instead of the automated recommendation system of google.

  • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    Did you download it over http instead of https? I know firefox blocks http downloads by default now so I could see chrome doing the same

  • fne8w2ah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    The irony. I use Vivaldi Browser now and may consider switching to Fennec if Firefox ever implements tab stacks.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve noticed YouTube acting funny in Firefox, too. Full-screen no longer works on our Galaxy Tab A using Firefox with ublock. On my PC, YouTube seems to randomly switch audio devices to output to. Neither of those problems exist in Chrome or the YouTube app. They didn’t exist in Firefox either until recently. Almost like it’s intentional…

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted; out of curiosity I just now tried it on Windows myself (Google Chrome 120.0.6099.130 Official Build 64-bit) by typing mozilla.org, clicking “Firefox downloads” at the top, and selecting the one for Windows. It sailed through almost instantly.

      BUT - just because it worked for me personally on a completely different machine, OS, and installer doesn’t mean OP is misrepresenting what happened to him; competitive app blocking has certainly happened with Edge. For all we know it’s some Google A/B trial bullshit, no telling at this point.