RE: https://mas.to/@alternativeto/116342072596115013

What in the fucking hell, @Waterfox. Why we can't have a fucking decent firefox fork that doesn't add shit like this.

Get that fascist cryptoasshole's money if you want but i'm uninstalling.

@cygnathreadbare @Waterfox Oh for fucks sake now I have to switch again
@crashlogger @cygnathreadbare No, you don't, because the OP severely misunderstood what is happening, and how software development works. You can see my other responses or read this: https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issuecomment-4211962270
Issue · BrowserWorks/waterfox

The official Waterfox đź’§ source code repository. Contribute to BrowserWorks/waterfox development by creating an account on GitHub.

GitHub
@Waterfox @cygnathreadbare A web browser should browse the web. That's it.
I use waterfox because it is a simple, no nonsense piece of software with no garbage anywhere that runs pretty well on my netbook.
This feels like extra garbage and I am not interested.
Having to opt out of one more thing in the current state of the internet is just annoying, and coming from you guys, I find it a bit insulting.
@crashlogger @cygnathreadbare Right - that’s exactly why this is included, because it blocks ads across sites by default, so you don’t have to install anything. If you’d rather not use it, a single toggle turns it off. But for most people, especially on lower-end hardware, fewer ads means faster pages and less resource usage. Already use an ad blocker? Great, it doesn’t make a difference to you then because it doesn’t get enabled if that’s already the case.
@Waterfox @cygnathreadbare Why does it get downloaded in the first place?
@crashlogger @cygnathreadbare It doesn't download anything? The library is already built-in to Firefox, I've extended it so it blocks ads as well. The default is changing from ads everywhere to blocking them (with the search exception to support Waterfox, which can also be disabled). Not sure why you think the current default is better?