I mean, nothing you said is exactly intelligent, your analogy was pretty horrid from the start since the issues with FF effects the product, and this mostly seems like an incoherent rambling about how you don’t like people expecting more because everything else is worse.

If they don’t eat babies, cool they don’t. If your morality says you need to eat a certain amount of babies and you also have it play into your purchases then it would make sense if they didn’t you didn’t use the product. That’s not a takedown of the idea in any real sense, just you attempting to lean into the fact people wouldn’t like someone with that morality.

You’re implying the arguments are invalid because changing the condition morality consumption etc changes people’s reaction but that’s because they find it unsound, not invalid. They disagree on the premises.

For example, you equated bisexuality with baby eating with one of your examples. If someone thinks both are moral failings, and they don’t want to use products that have creators they think are immoral, it would be logically valid for them to avoid baby eater produced products or products made by bi folk.

Me saying they’re wrong and a piece of shit is me saying the premise that bisexuality is a moral failing is wrong and believing it is morally incorrect as well, not that the idea is invalid if you did accept that premise.

You’re also ignoring the fact that many FF complaints is because the things people think they do that is wrong is the features they implement into the browser.

So even if you don’t particularly think people should apply their morality in what things they support and blindly consume or use products without care, you would also have to support the idea that people should blindly support products that they believe are actively decreasing in quality.

And viability doesn’t mean anything in this race, chrome is also viable believe it or not, arguably more viable since websites assume you’re on chromium a majority of the time and some actively have attempted to hinder Firefox, so if pure web browsing viability is your concern you should be championing the cause of Google Chrome.

I use a FF fork and have never really had an issue with it so far and have zero complaints, your argument was just so incoherent and has so many weird assumptions I don’t know how you arrived at the stance you did besides potentially a Mozilla check lmao. But that can’t be the case either; if it was their execs would have less money in their pockets while begging for Google handouts and that’s not happening.

So… eating babies is different than every other example you listed. The reason most people think you shouldn’t care about a creator being Bi, or driving automatic is those aren’t moral failings.

Also even the eating babies example sucks as the perceived moral failings also influence the product until the pushback has them renege.

It’s more akin to them having weird stalker behavior and then occasionally dropping a track where they talk about how fun it is creeping on folks.

It both is weird and I’d rather not support someone that does it if at all possible, and it also influences the product they are putting out.

Eh, I mean they’re designed to be as predatory as possible but if you do math and treat it as a debit you literally just get free money back.

Also you need a credit history here as no credit is treated as the same (if not worst) than bad credit and the only other options for establishing one is taking out loans.

If you’re okay never being able to finance a vehicle or house though, then no credit history is fine as long as you can provide full cash for those purchases up front.

shopping spree on a non-taxation one

You have discovered Delaware.

Are any of those official successors?

Just about any defunct online service sees a dozen knockoffs of even more questionable quality than the original (for those into manga, think what happened to the site batoto after being sold). But it still remains that if you go to omegle.com, you get the defunct page and an explanation. Typing it into search engines did give exactly one that I know is legitimately a chatting service (ome.tv), but also are trying to act as if they are the original sites, some seemingly using templates and pointing to different apps to direct download their apks and the like.

I think suggesting they’re the same as the original (which was grimy, and full of sex pests, but the site itself didn’t pose such blatant infosec issues) is disingenuous imo

deleted by creator

Arch, because I get to say that I use Arch. /s

Omegle

Gramps, they shut down 2 years ago

would love to have an excuse to give even more ludicrous amounts of taxpayers dollars to military contractors

The idea that anyone would need an excuse to give military contractors infinite money in this country is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

Won’t work for things like neobanks (revolut, n26, trade republic, sumeria)

Ya know, fair enough there ngl, I forgot about those and it definitely makes a difference if you’re reliant on an app.

Also many banks have a disastrous web interface in my country, and card 2FA is sometimes only done on the app for internet payments

Yeah, not much can be done about bad web design. I found that me during a period abroad, it was a worthwhile compromise, but sometimes it can be brutal to deal with.

I know not having the app makes me unable to get Burger King offers, or use the Yuka app, both of which I really need

Gotcha, but in that case, it’s effectively them bribing privacy concessions from you. That’s part of the payment trade-off there.

I don’t really disagree with your points here; it highlights the importance of threat modelling. On a country-by-country basis, things may be far easier or harder. For example, when I was in Japan, I used fewer privacy-questionable apps due to less cultural and technological impetus than I have in the States. The differences you’re having issues with are likely heavily based on both infrastructure and value differences between much of the comm and you. I frankly make many privacy compromises compared to others here myself, but that is less do to the alternative being backwards but more so due to it being ever so slightly more inconvenient.

If you do install it, which you probably will unless you’re okay with living 10 years in the past and losing time, then you’re pretty much back to square one

Non-sandboxed play services have vastly more permissions and access to device information; it’s a step back from not having it, but utterly disengenuous to call it back to square one. It has far more privileged permission, and as you admit yourself, we don’t know what is in its code, so we don’t know what it is potentially doing with that permission.

where? Criticizing something specific inherently implies there is a better alternative, or you wouldn’t be focused specifically on apple. I’m saying android is not and AOSP is not viable due to being an outdated user experience and supporting much much less apps and features, as well as not really being used without play services

Your whole comment is hinging pretty hard on the AOSP point, as that’s almost definitely the alternative the user was referring to.

no bank apps? no google maps? no fast food or taxi app? no ‘mainstream’ social media? that’s your only phone?

The only ones there that are anywhere close to essential are banking and Google Maps. Maps has alternatives that I’ve seen people use as well, such as Organic Maps. More importantly is most of these can be done in a single app, a web browser.

I’ve done both app and phone browser banking, and they’re pretty interchangeable, just set up site shortcuts on your home screen instead. Similar to fast food, I don’t use taxis. Social media is the main offender here but most mainstream social media sucks dick.

Why do you need these things as apps?