• Substance_P@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    For those not in the loop, the Ladybird browser project’s primary goal is to deliver a browser focused on speed, stability, security, and strict adherence to web standards, something we always rely on other browsers to do.

    The project is about developing a brand-new web browser and rendering engine from the ground up, not taking code from Chrome, Apple or Mozilla with their inherent flaws, but building a new web ecosystem that maintains a user-centric model funded entirely by donations and sponsorships rather than advertising or data tracking.

    Def looking forward to this new browser and would happily pay for the freedom of not being tracked.

      • TootSweet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        It does appear that Ladybird has a grant from FUTO. (At least if their website can be trusted. They have a history of boosting their own image by implying relationships with projects/organizations/etc without the other organization knowing anything about it. But I think (probably?) the “Grants” section is more reliable than the “Microgrants” section on that score.)

        But Tor and Signal and MicroG and Creative Commons have similarly received grants from FUTO and I wouldn’t think of them as projects that FUTO has undue influence on. (I’m pretty certain most of them preexisted FUTO, for one thing. Could be wrong on some of them. But I’m pretty certain none of those were “built by” FUTO the way, say, Grayjay was.)

        But I’m still nervous about it. This might just be FUTO trying to bolster its own image by making it seem like they’re more responsible for Ladybird than they really are. (Mind you, I haven’t even watched the video because, like you, I think FUTO’s all absolute shitbags that I don’t want anything to do with.) But this post seem to be implying FUTO is more involved with Ladybird than I’d hope, if of course it can be trusted.