I definitely see the merit in this argument, and the case against Firefox’s security on Android has been a major interest of mine for a long time. There doesn’t seem to be any denying that Chromium-based browsers are vastly superior in terms of security; and it seems pretty important, as browsers are our main gateways to the Internet at large.
The question that rolls around in my head a lot is: what happens when we turn enough people away from Firefox on Android that it doesn’t become feasible for the company to maintain a mobile version of the browser? What will happen when we allow Chromium to become the only way to browse the Internet, a piece of software that’s in the hands of one of the world’s greatest threats to personal digital privacy? Chromium is already a monopoly, but as long as alternatives exist, users at least have the option to jump ship and use something that does provide privacy, albeit at the sacrifice of world-class security.
I guess the question boils down to whether we’re willing to take the risk of inferior security versus giving up just about the only other real option we have to browsing the Internet on our mobile devices. Which threat do you feel is greater in the long-term? MV3 is one of the main arguments that I see in favour of not giving in to Google’s monopoly, and many people say it won’t be as bad as it’s been made out to be, but what will happen when Google decides to really clamp down on our browsing habits in the future and we have no option at all but to adhere to new standards? Would companies like Brave be able to undo major, fundamental anti-privacy changes made to Chromium if Google were to implement them? How much of our digital privacy is Google allowing us to make tweaks to browsers like Brave and Vanadium rather than totally closing us off completely because it’s affecting their ad model? A lot of the time I feel that we rely too much on Google providing us with certain freedoms and technologies, but that reliance could turn into a disaster should they ever decide to change things up, like if their profit margins dip too low. Alternatives like Firefox exist so this doesn’t have to be a reality for those that don’t want to completely rely on major corporations.
Obviously this is more of a “what if” scenario, and one that’s more focused on a potential future rather that what the reality of the situation is right now, and right now the argument against Firefox and it’s lack of important security features is sound - at the same time, a future where Google has control of all of our online traffic seems a lot scarier overall than the potential threats we face when we use Firefox to browse the net. We also know that companies like Google are excellent at implementing slow but gradual changes over periods of time that ultimately end up chipping away at our privacy and digital freedom, and one day they’ll have complete and utter control of the way that we use the Internet, and if no real alternatives exist, what do we do?
The only reason Firefox is still around is due to the number of people that are still using it, but we know that the usage numbers have dropped significantly over the last few years, and will likely continue to do so. Is it within our best interests to make recommendations that facilitate safer browsing right now but those same recommendations may hurt or outright destroy our digital privacy in the future because we pushed users away from the alternatives? It seems like it’s almost the antithesis of what a project like Privacy Guides is attempting to achieve, especially if we are looking to safeguard our privacy both now and in the future - and it already feels like we’re on the losing side here.
I feel that Firefox should remain a recommended option, but with the appropriate caveats attached, and allow users to at least have the choice of using a browser that isn’t developed by a single, monolithic company. Google already controls so much, and I already give them plenty of my data by using many of the services that they offer, but Firefox remains one of the few ways that I’m able to access the online world in a somewhat sovereign way, and it would be pretty dystopian if that got taken away. This is obviously a philosophical argument against a technical one, but I do feel that it has real implications for the way that we use the Internet, especially in coming years. Personally, I’m willing to make the sacrifice of some security if it means keeping Firefox’s numbers up and giving them an incentive to continue providing an alternative browsing option on mobile.