this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
59 points (98.4% liked)
Asklemmy
53015 readers
345 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think web browsers would make sense as a subscription. The battle to keep them secure is intense and always ongoing. I think Firefox and Chrome should be subscriptions, while free browsers should have a drastically reduced feature set.
I'm not against supporting a software in a recurring form but the web browser is essentially the lock and key of accessing the entirery of what exists outside your machine.
That would garner an immense power to whichever entity developing one. Remember Microsoft and the IE case.
Firefox is not perfect and apparently on a downwards spiral but what made it stand out was because it wanted to be free and for all. Chrome is far from being a good thing.
Stop making websites do more and more shit, and browsers would need less and less development.
Stop making browsers with AI enhanced garbage. Stop embedding "features" in software that at its core only needs to render websites.
That's the best part. You'd only get those pointless features if you paid money. If you didn't you'd get the Pale Moon browser (or something like it).
This is a terrible idea!
It is the reason why Microsoft was able to gimp the Internet for so long with Internet Explorer. Companies couldn't make money off of the browser, so Microsoft made a browser that helped defend the Windows monopoly.
Average capitalist consumer
Even though it would be one way to make Mozilla self-sustainable, it would open a pandora box of different problems. Would free-versions continue receiving security updates? Would access to some websites be locked behind the premium version? It's a dangerous idea.
By "free browsers" I didn't mean "free versions". I'm thinking more along the lines of Pale Moon or Konqueror (in it's early days), third-party FOSS browsers with limited features.