this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
119 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
85570 readers
3760 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They'll continue to work just fine in Firefox.
And If sites start trying to block Firefox, we work around it. User-Agent is still malleable.
I think that the concern is whether a number of websites might stop working with Firefox if Chrome users consistently represent ad revenue and Firefox users generally don't.
I use Firefox, but it has relatively-limited marketshare in 2026. A lot of people just browse on mobile devices and on Android devices, Chrome's probably the default browser.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/
Chrome at 70.25%.
Safari at 15.72%.
Edge at 5.14%.
Firefox at 2.19%.
That's going to change though with ad blocker not working on chrome, more people will install Firefox for android.
Yeah, that's true. But...if a website derives its revenue from ads, a non-ad-viewing user
and users who switch browsers so as to use an ad blocker would presumably be blocking ads
loses that website money rather than generating it. Like, for such a website, the issue would be how many Firefox users that do view ads would be lost if their website didnlt work on Firefox.
Those of you who remember the early 2000s, when Internet Explorer had very high marketshare, probably remember a number of websites that didn't work with other browsers.
Broad rule of thumb for me:
If your website needs ad revenue to either exist, or that's fundamentally its entire business model?
That website does not need to exist.
Now sure, are their caveats to this? Yes. But broadly, its usually true. The website should exist as a small loss leading part of your whole shebang, or should have some kind of membership or donation model or something else, to fund itself.
Its also not that hard to make a website follow broswer agnostic standards. If the website can't figure out how to do that, if they think its fine to be a browser-vendor exclusive website, I don't need to use it.
Google is already killing the ad revenue model of the web by presenting the content it scrapes with AI for search — effectively stealing their content for profit — instead of ranking links so users navigate to their sites. Many have ahead seen a 70-90% drop in traffic, resulting in a 70-90% drop in ad revenue.
Capitalism is a blast, huh? Crime is very legal and very cool!
That's what is returned by their browser detection tool for Vanadium on graphene.
Cromite is even more privacy oriented, returning
Their stats combine ALL versions of chrome (chromium) which would also include things like cromite, degoogled chrome, cromium itself, possibly vivaldi, apps that use webview (doordash, voyager for lemmy, bank apps, etc) might even be included as they are chrome/chromium on android, would all tally for chrome with no differentiation even though some versions are light years apart.
Cromite/vanadium and chrome are the same browssrs the way chocolate and vanilla are the same ice cream.
Oh, and to muddle things some more, on Android, viewing using desktop site gives this: