> While still allowing random third party javascript to run unchecked on a parent website.

Lol, why are you commenting as if somehow allowing it to run negates the other good ideas in some way? Obviously some is better than none, and all is better than some, but each step takes more effort.

It’s odd that orgs like NYT don’t run their own ad services. I’m sure they have a dedicated department for ad sales for physical copies. They’re large enough that companies would work directly with them. And they would have at least some editorial control on what is displayed on their site.

>prevent your browser from requesting the advertisers' JavaScript code. Your browser not only won't show the ads, it won't run the code that was supposed to show them or even send a request to the advertisers' servers.

Incidentally, just blocking JavaScript with NoScript kills quite a lot of ads (obviously, not first-party ones if you've white-listed their JavaScript for site functionality; but I try to avoid that when there isn't real demonstrated value) without any need for an explicit ad blocker.

1st-party would likely be prevented by disabling cookies? Obviously they could fingerprint every visitor on every request, but most just set an ID cookie and check it on subsequent pages I think, since that's good enough for tracking most people (who aren't actively trying not to be tracked). Of course, that breaks things that need a session (like a cart), but depending on what you want from a site, it could be fine.

MSN is all rehosted articles I believe. Several times I've searched major paper headlines to read the full story on MSN.

No idea what kind of deal these places have with Microsoft.

Save or export would make more sense but printing to pdf has been the way to do it forever.

This is how I get around that same issue, but it truly is a hacky workaround.

right-click save-as?

I use the Auto Discard Tabs plug-in, just lets tabs time-out after a set amount of time

I mean those aren't real controversies though, it's more like "we added a VPN feature and included the VPN, but have now removed it". A real controversy would be like Mozilla who was pushing for censorship and silencing "bad actors" in the years after the first Trump election.

Chrome’s developers didn’t have to say anything. Anyone who’s been trying to build on the latest web features (for me, particularly WebGL, WebRTC, WebGPU and IndexedDB) over the past decade has been bitten by Safari over and over again. They usually come around after being raked over the coals by the web dev community, but they’re still usually years behind.

When “Safari is the new IE” was first published, they absolutely were. They’ve gotten a bit better since then, but all the same it was hilarious to see people who used to rail against IE for flaunting web standards (cough John Gruber cough) suddenly start saying that web standards were a bogus racket once Apple decided to stop keeping up with them.

You're drinking Apple kool-aid if you think Safari isn't holding web back.

Lots of anti-google people dislike Safari. Safari isn't the only non-google option you know.

Significantly better battery life too. Like hours.

Developers don't convince anyone of anything! They just build stuff according to standards (which are inevitably set not by standards orgs, but by the most popular browsers), and then they expect all browsers to follow those standards and "just work".

When a browser like Safari fails to adhere to those standards, sites will break ... but you can't expect developers (of most sites; I'm not talking about the top 100 or anything) to test in every possible browser ... and then change their code to accommodate them. Certainly not in ones with single-digit percentages of market share, that require their own OS to test (like Safari).

> Is it easier to build a browser for MacOS?

Financially, probably. Apple customers represent a disproportionate share of global consumer disposable income.

Technically, I guess Unix-like, BrowserEngineKit and WebKit (Orion uses this) help. Good question, hope someone knowledgeable chimes in!

The future of Google as Chrome’s owner is genuinely in question now due to Google’s antitrust losses, in case you weren’t aware.

There’s a few different cases, one recent one Google has lost and is now in the “remedy” phase. Meaning the court has officially decided Google did bad, and is now considering what to make Google do about it. And splitting up Google into separate Chrome, search, etc companies is completely on the table.

Some reading:

https://www.theverge.com/23869483/us-v-google-search-antitru...

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/google-found-guilty-of-mo...

Might want to look at who provides most of the funds for Mozilla.

Was it Firefox? I remember Firefox existing at the time but I don't think it's ever really had dominant market share, perhaps when it was Netscape? I do remember the IE campaign went on quite a long time to where eventually Chrome showed up to the party and people shifted over as well as shifted their family and friends over. You don't see that kind of active effort for Firefox ever.

Turn what off? HTTP is how you receive the web page in the first place. It is not, in itself, causing data to be sent from your computer to others. That happens either because of a script on the page or because you request a web page (i.e. the browser sends headers).