Streamable Video
streamable.com
Watch this video on Streamable.

Today, I noticed that Google wasn’t loading on Mull (Firefox Fork). Switching useragent with the extension Chameleon makes the page load again.

    • Vincent Adultman@lemmy.worldOP
      181·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but it’s more complicated than that. Do you think the average user that for some reason uses Firefox will try to find out why his Google page isn’t working? Last year Google was fined €2.5b due to unfair competition. This is not the first time, Google probably makes a lot of people switch doing these things. The top post of Lemmy is about Google turning itself into spyware and this just shows just how thats accurate.

      • Katlah@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        57·
        1 year ago

        I think the average Firefox user won’t be using anything Google (other than YouTube, but even then it’ll probably be through alternative frontends).

        • Anonymouse@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          1 year ago

          While your statement is true, I install Firefox on any computer I support (family & friends) because I understand it better, can talk them through stuff on the phone and so I can install an ad blocker and not.have to deal with all of that. So now I need to explain to family and friends that Google is to blame, but they don’t care and ask me to install “the normal browser”. Ugh.

          Also, I now have to deal with the Google-heads at work using this as an example of how chrome is the superior browser. Double ugh.

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
    121·
    1 year ago

    Is this still true? I just tested and it works for me on LibreWolf, both for google.com and google.com.br.

    Honestly, Google doing this as a deliberate anti-Firefox measure seems so wildly stupid and counterproductive on their part that I’d assume it was some failure (serving a slightly different version of the page to Chrome as for other browsers, and the non-Chrome side breaks for some reason) before thinking it was malicious.

    • unalivejoy@lemm.eeEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      oops, you discovered a bug that only effects Firefox because we only test in Chrome. It’s fixed now :P

        • itmosi@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          1 year ago

          Nothing special, Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:121.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/121.0. I checked the network tab, they literally return nothing.

          • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
            10·
            1 year ago

            Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:121.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/121.0.

            I just did a bunch of testing. The issue is that final version number, “Firefox/121.0”. Google returns very different versions of the page based on what browser you claim to be, and if you’re on mobile Firefox, it gives you different mobile versions depending on your version:

            % wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/41.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:54:29 URL:https://www.google.com/ [1985] -> "-" [1]
    1985
% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/62.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:54:36 URL:https://www.google.com/ [211455] -> "-" [1]
  211455
% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/80.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:52:24 URL:https://www.google.com/ [15] -> "-" [1]
      15
% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/121.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:52:04 URL:https://www.google.com/ [15] -> "-" [1]
      15

            If you’re an early version of Firefox, it gives you a simple page. If you’re a later version of Firefox, it gives you a lot more complete version of the page. If you’re claiming to be a specific version of mobile Firefox, but the version you’re claiming (edit: oopsie doesn’t exist or even really make sense didn’t exist when they set this logic up or something), it gets confused and gives you nothing. You could argue that it should default to some sensible mobile version in this case, and they should definitely fix it, but it seems to me like it’s clearly not malicious.

            Edit: Wait, I am wrong. I didn’t realize Firefox’s version numbers went up so high. It looks like the cutoff for where the blank pages start coming is at version 65, which is like 2012 era, so not real old at all. I still maintain that it’s probably accidental but it looks like it affects basically all modern mobile Firefoxes, yes.

  • azron@lemmy.ml
    3·
    1 year ago

    Heh. I was skeptical this was true fired up mull and sure enough still displaying nothing.

  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
    2·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, that is sus…I just use !bang in duckduckgo though, and I get results even with Noscript and Ublock on…

    !g some search

    Works in Mull…but yeah google.com shows blank even with extensions turned off. Meh, I haven’t been on Google in a long while now. Too many decent altermatives to care.