I know I can spoof my useragent, it’s just ridiculous that such a massive app doesn’t support an equally massive browser.
Try the user agent switcher add-on. The volume of times I’ve changed my agent to chrome and had a site work perfectly is infuriating.
My problem was that CloudFlare refused to validate me when I have it enabled. I could have stock FF UA, but if my user agent switcher addon isn’t disabled then I didn’t get to use Crunchyroll and a few other sporadic sites.
I haven’t been able to use a cloudfare website for a while now. If they’re going to make me go through hoops because I refuse to use chrome, fuck it, they don’t get my business.
FF works with CloudFlare sites, just not with that extension enabled. It doesn’t make sense that they’d purposely block sites if you have a UA switcher that isn’t even changing the UA so I’m hoping it’s a bug that will get fixed
I have a setting somewhere that pisses off cloudflare then. It doesn’t matter what I do with FF, it just keeps making me click the checkmark over and over.
That was my experience as well until I read a comment on Reddit that disabling the UA switcher addon in Firefox’s settings fixes it. It’s really annoying having to enable it every time I want to pretend to use Chrome but at least I can watch anime again.
I was sure I disabled it, but next time I need it, I’ll make sure. Thank you.
I still doesn’t work even if I have changed user agent to chrome. I guess they have some other mechanism to find the browser.
I don’t understand why Firefox doesn’t have a button for that
That’s okay, I use Firefox and don’t support Snapchat.
You should submit something to the webcompat website. It would help and they’ll contact Snapchat and see what they can do.
I doubt that a company with billions in revenue and thousands of coders is going to change mind after that. They exactly know how many people are getting the error and intentionally decided to implement it
At the same time, the variables in that calculation might change over time. If it becomes easy enough for them to support it, or the costs of not supporting it get too high, they might change their minds.
Alternatively: wean yourself and your friends off of snapchat. In my part of the world, snapchat isn’t popular anymore. It doesn’t offer anything new and so barely anyone uses it.
If Snapchat does nothing, the Firefox team will change the user agent to trick the website into thinking it’s something else.
I don’t think they ever did that, otherwise add-ons like “Google search fixer” that change the user agent wouldn’t exist. (My fix in that case is don’t use Google at all - installing an add-on otherwise amp links aren’t shown and the useless ai search isn’t available doesn’t make sense, that’s a plus)
I thought the Google search fixer was only for mobile.
I have no idea, I find no use for that as I’m not using Google
Fair enough
I imagine the overlap of people who use Snapchat and people who use Firefox is pretty small, they probably see such a small amount of users with Firefox and they just decided not to support it.
In this day and age it’s more work to explicitly not support a browser than it is to support it…
Sort of. I imagine the idea is they only need to test on Chromium-based browsers.
So often just swapping the user agent from Firefox to Chrome makes these sites work flawlessly. So they’re putting in extra code to detect Firefox and serve a “we don’t support your browser” page when they could just… not. And if a user complains about X, they could say we don’t test on Firefox, try on Chrome.
Yeah, but by putting up the “we don’t support this” banner, they won’t have to deal with the complaints in the first place.
It’s also possible they want people to use Chromium for telemetry or other data-collection reasons, not sure.
I wonder if it’s possible that they’re paid money by Google to not support Firefox?
Maybe they’re trying to become the new Internet Explorer?
Another side I haven’t seen mentioned
It might be easier to track users in Chrome. If even a few users open it in chrome instead of Firefox, that’s a benefit for them
Yeah, I’m sure Chrome works well with Google Analytics tools which seem to be on every site nowadays…
Toggle to the unsupported browser tab: https://www.pge.com/en/accessibility/supported-browsers.html
I can’t imagine what possible decision led to this for a utility company used by millions.
I imagine the overlap of people who use Snapchat and people who use Firefox is pretty small
I argue it's 0, as it does not work.
It’s a joke, I know what you are meaning; you meant using both separately.
Even if true, do you support this funnel approach?
Snapchat has been a shit company for years. They threatened to sue third party client developers for Windows Phone, they purposely degrade camera quality on Android, etc (For awhile on Android they were just screenshotting the viewfinder instead of actually using the camera APIs.)
yeah, snapchat is far from open source and privacy respecting 😂
As @denschub@schub.social always emphasises: make sure to file a report at https://webcompat.com!
We ask everyone to file their reports, because all reports are really useful. Even if we don’t respond to every single thing you report, it’s a signal that we’re processing in many different ways. (…) please, keep reporting all issues you see, because every single blip counts!
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1de7bu1/comment/l8ghtr2/
never knew about this but I’m definitely going to start using it
@Vincent @potentiallynotfelix I mean, yeah, but we know about Snapchat. https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/107613
I didn’t even know that there was a Snapchat for web
I’m just surprised people still use it.
I’ve never used Snapchat on mobile, so I didn’t bother checking if it works on web. It’s neat, but I still don’t care.
Fuck every form of this. Website: you deliver the document, and I decide if it works.
You are supposed to do feature detection, not user agent detection since it is easily spoofed, isn’t realiable, & doesn’t account for literally all the alternative UAs that can support it. This is bad/lazy practice.
Fx doesn’t always have all the features you need, but often it usually does & where I have seen this as being deployed is management saying it isn’t worth the effort to support. Just having one person on the team running Fx is usually enough to catch the game-breaking bugs.
what’s even the advantage in this?
Something marketing and having your service not appear dysfunctional or buggy to the stupid, stupid enduser
Also avoids firefox privacy
Snapchat has a web client? :o
you can’t snap, can only messageedit: im wrong you can snap now.doesnt that kind of defeat the point ?
Dunno never saw the appeal anyway
what even is the point of snapchat?
well it was sending nudes at first, before people realized that nothing really got erased
deleted by creator
but capitalism doesnt work
deleted by creator
It actually works just fine if you change your user agent. BTW Snapchat likes to break support for Firefox or re-enable support all the time. Don’t know what their issue is but whatever.
Doesn’t for me for some reason… I change to chrome on windows and just get an “Oops something went wrong…” I think it might be because I forgot my password and tried like 10 of them so it locked me out, however.
doesn’t it utilize some fancy camera APIs or whatever? last time I tried it on firefox with a spoofed user agent there were errors in the console
yeah it just won’t let me in on firefox at all, i had to use chr*mium 🤮 in a vm to get in
Well keep logging in via firefox. Send them a message
… Snapchat for web??? Wtf
based sway user
How can you tell? Looks like either i3 or sway, and that’s coming from another sway user lol
You could also get xmonad or dwm or something to look like this as well.
i3 you mean…
Can you get away with a change of the “User Agent”?Edit (: Reading is hard. I only read the title and looked at the screenshot, without reading the body text of the post. So my question is answered. Sorry for wasting time.)
