nope
i think we need more browser choices, specifically not based on Chrome or FF.
I'd pay for a privacy browser containing no Google or FF code.
Discussion
Why not having a firefox base? I stand fully behind FF, since the most well known project TOR and Mullvad are built on it.
forks are/can be ok.
mainline FF is funded by Google and has telemetry/tracking. it is a compromised project and has been since Google got involved.
It is 100% opensource and serves very good configuration options. When you load the arkenfox userscript telemetry is turned off. And it serves some anti fingerprint features. Together with uBlock it is great for me.
I'm aware of what FF is and is not. Please, dont try to "educate" me on browsers, I'm an ex IT professional. Vanilla FF is controled by Google. period.
I've used Mozilla on and off since the 1990s. It's no longer the same project. OpenSource does not mean that it is harmless.
I'm using a fork of FF (IronFox) on this Android phone at the moment. I won't touch the vanilla FF project. My choice, you do as you wish.
the latest FF scandal.
All fine. No need to be offensive.
I'm not
I'm expressing an opinion
like it or lump it
Then pleas learn to articulate precise. "Vanilla FF is controled by Google." is not an expression of a opinion. It is a statement, that can only be true or false. No room for opinion.
As fast as you state, "I believe FF to be controled by Google" it would be an expression of opinion.
Sure Google pays around 80% of the funds for Mozilla. This is creating a dependency for sure. But it does not proof, that google influences the development of Firefox.
You as a former IT professional could be as great and bring some source of proof, for such bold claims. Sence beside self-addvertisment, you do not seem trustworthy to me currently. And your opinion lacks support of proof.