What feature can just be enabled remotely the way you are complaining about? The issue is "when features with vulnerabilities are enabled, then going to a web page that can compromise the vulnerability might be able to do things". You just assume that all features can somehow have a vulnerability that will let a remote web page change the browser settings, and that's a STRANGE thing to ASSUME is happening.

I've never seen Firefox updates that just decide to change settings that I had put in place the way you are claiming, but if you are such a special butterfly that you feel a need for some fully cut down browser, go to command line lynx and be happy with the lack of graphics and potential things to compromise you.

Modular approach doesn't have to be plugin/add-on as the method. We aren't living in the 1990s, they COULD have it where features you disable in settings unload the feature from memory. This doesn't mean there isn't room for plugins, but when you have to compete, many people look at the features that come already included as their reasoning for picking one product over another.

I start by turning the old-school menu bar on, and go from there. It's not difficult, and easier to find things than the UI you find in Chrome or Edge.

Disable the feature in settings, and then you won't care. It's not like certain other browsers where you need to give an obscure command in the main bar to get to a feature to turn it on/off.

When almost every person wants a given feature, does it make sense to require it to be an add-on, or a checkbox to enable/disable the feature? The majority of the stuff you don't want can be disabled via settings.

If you look at the debates that do happen, Democrats do debate well, while you see the Republicans try to bulldozer their way through, without letting a moderator step in and keep order. That is why you saw Trump complain about things being unfair, because he is actually stopped from just ignoring the rules and rambling on with a lot of lies and misleading statements.

To Trump, if he says something that is a KNOWN falsehood, anyone who calls him out on that falsehood is being unfair. He calls so many things "fake news" that are actually correct, but don't cover up for his lies.

It all comes down to some basic mathematics. Now, before the modern Internet, every village, town, and city had a FEW people who were considered a village idiot, conspiracy theory nut, or "crazy". The local people knew who they were, and knew to ignore what those people would say. Then, the Internet showed up, and everyone got access. A strange thing happened, suddenly we saw just how many of those "village idiots" there were, all those small towns, or cities, the crazies started organizing. When the overall numbers get counted, they might amount to 10% or less, but when elections are often within 5%, that 10% would mean the difference between winning an election or losing it.

So, the Republicans decided to embrace that segment of the populace, and gave them more power than at any time in history, to the point you see people like Marjorie Taylor Greene actually winning elections and getting into office, and then getting reelected. Then, the rest of the Republican Party embraced them and let them get leadership positions. In the same way that conservatives have had control over the DNC(you see it when Joe Manchin was looked on so favorably while ANY progressive would have the DNC try to primary them out of office), the crazies have taken over the Republican Party.

And all of this is because both parties keep nominating bad candidates for elections, so you get an even split of people who are disgusted by both choices, so just vote on party lines. If people win by only 5%, that's showing a person who isn't accepted by a true majority of people.

Not engineered. He is always fair, but will not let a guest just run over him with non-stop rants or lies the way Fox would let a Republican. A Republican who is rational and will explain their views, then actually discuss potential holes will have no problem with anyone who "leans to the left" on shows. If you just start saying how you are right and keep going without an actual dialog, that's when ANY good interviewer will stop you. Weak people will let the other person just go on and on, even when they say factually incorrect things that have been disproven.

Not slowly. The Republican Party with their fanatical support of Donald Trump, have made a point of just doing ANYTHING, no matter that it violates the US Constitution, for Trump and to not stop Trump from doing ANYTHING.

The big concern is that Republicans are clearly working to rig the mid-term elections where they can, just because Republicans are down to a 35 percent approval rating with the majority of US citizens looking to get the Republican Party out of power at this point.

While there are briefings to alert the president about things that come up, Donald Trump is the first president who is not mentally capable of reading a briefing, and has EVERYONE do the work for him. The posts on Truth Social are being done by Natalie for example, and if you actually listen to Donald Trump, he can't keep his mind on important issues for longer than a few minutes without his mind drifting off to something else.

Donald Trump really isn't capable of leading at this point, dementia is too far along to let him even seem to be able to think rationally.

It's not the teachers doing it, it is the school administrators and school boards who don't want to lose financial help if the students aren't above a certain level. Conservatives here in the USA who are more concerned with their religion than making sure students can actually understand what is going on have gotten far too much control of school districts around the country.

Trump relies on others to tell him what is going on, because actually reading reports is well beyond his ability to process information. I don't know if he has always been this bad, or if he had a stroke 10-15 years ago that did it to him, but what we see today is where the woman who changes his diaper is the one who posts the nonsense on fake-Truth Social.

The issue at hand is that monitoring the behaviors of ANYONE, citizen or not, should require a warrant to show probable cause. Doing a search without that warrant being given first then falls under illegal search. It's not about if people have done something wrong, but more, law enforcement isn't allowed to just search you, your records, or go to private companies to do a search without there being a search warrant FIRST.

This is where ICE is continually breaking the law, because they don't go through the part of getting a search warrant first.

No, people want the police and ICE to be held accountable for illegal search and assaults on people. No one wants "increased government monitoring", except for the fascists who love the Trump administration. If the police or ICE KILLs someone and it's not justified, then those police officers or ICE agents should at the least lose their jobs, and they should be brought up on charges of manslaughter or murder if warranted.

Government monitoring where people go without a warrant is supposed to be illegal in this country. Capturing where EVERYONE is going falls into the category of government monitoring that everyone said was one of the worst parts of communism, right? Can't go anywhere without your travel papers, or being subject to a random search, so yea, these Flock cameras are a part of bringing the worst elements of being in a "police state" to the USA.