Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 441 posts

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#241

Post by mstade »

eloston wrote: post #66

Hey guys, I'm the developer. I was really surprised to see the number of stars on GitHub suddenly skyrocket, and I think I found why. Thank you all for your interest in my project! Feel free to make an issue (for questions, suggestions, or bug reports) or a pull request anytime. I might respond to a few more comments here before calling it a day.

> Disable JavaScript dialog boxes from showing when a page closes (onbeforeunload events) Bypasses the annoying dialog boxes that spawn when a page is being closed

That seemed pretty random, and not related to the ultimate goal of the project. Are there other normal features that are disabled, that don't relate to Google at all?

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#242

Post by stephenr »

gnarbarian wrote: post #192
stephenr wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which people? Reich and the guy from oculus who supported the trump group. > Riddle me this What is a "cake for a gay wedding" compared to any other kind of wedding cake? Is there same-sex marzipan I'm not aware of? A baker refusing to bake a cake for someone because they're gay/Jewish is discrimination, and bigotry/racism (religious discrimination if you consider Judaism purely a religion and not an ethnicity/race…

>Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business. I'm trying to establish an objective rule for what kinds of discrimination you believe should be legal. You described each situation but you didn't actually make a value judgement (which was the whole point of the question).

A company refusing/rescinding service/employment to a person because of who they are/what they believe is discrimination.

A company refusing to produce a specific item for a person because they feel it is inappropriate is not discrimination unless they're providing the same thing to other people.

A person refusing to support a company because of the actions of its staff/owners/etc is not discrimination.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#243

Post by orf »

ZoF wrote: post #224
glogla wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job. Maybe not direct instance. But if I were at Mozilla, I would have resigned because of him. I mean, Eich was giving money to people campaigning for removing civil rights from people based on their sexual orientation. That's not a small thing - if it was race instead of sexuality…

That's your choice to make. That said, most rational people can identify an opinion they disagree with without resorting to threatening the livelihood of the person espousing it. The man made a $1,000 donation to support a view he believed in. He did nothing illegal or wrong and pledged promoting equality at Mozilla. He then had a large concerted smear campaign run against him, with major sites threatening to block F…

You can phrase it however you want and make it seem as innocent as you can. But you can't hide from the fact that he donated to a proposition that would curtail the rights of someone based on their sexual preference.

He made his choice and that stood against everything Mozilla stands for (freedom, privacy, etc etc). As a result of him making his choice he faced s lot of pressure, quite rightfully, and then he decided to step down. His choice.

You can speculate as much as you like about the ins and outs of it but it's just that. Speculation.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#244

Post by orf »

ZoF wrote: post #227
glogla wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits to that kind of tolerance, though. You shouldn't care what politicians your coworker likes. You shouldn't care what religion your coworker follows. You should care if your coworker is neo-nazi or if he is supporting Islamic State or Westboro Baptist Church. The only diagreement is whether Eich was closer to the former or the latter. I can perfectly imagine people whose rights he wanted to take away t…

You have no evidence he is closer to the former and all this is is justification for cultural Marxism. The only thing that an individual should be judged on at work is actions/comments/etc. made at work. If you'd like to argue otherwise I'd hope you at least have something more formally define-able than 'he was trending towards being a neo-nazi'. I'd also expect you to be able to point to an authority for defining th…

Nobody black would hang a confederate flag in their living room.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#245

Post by lorenzhs »

Blackthorn wrote: post #140

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this remove Safe Browsing? Not a good idea.

Yeah, seems like it: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/commit/9163f6e... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re...

That is a very bad idea. I sympathize with the idea of the project, but please think twice before meddling in security things. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9779990

I filed an issue to explain the risks: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/issues/50

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#246

Post by ZoF »

orf wrote: post #243
ZoF wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your choice to make. That said, most rational people can identify an opinion they disagree with without resorting to threatening the livelihood of the person espousing it. The man made a $1,000 donation to support a view he believed in. He did nothing illegal or wrong and pledged promoting equality at Mozilla. He then had a large concerted smear campaign run against him, with major sites threatening to block F…

You can phrase it however you want and make it seem as innocent as you can. But you can't hide from the fact that he donated to a proposition that would curtail the rights of someone based on their sexual preference. He made his choice and that stood against everything Mozilla stands for (freedom, privacy, etc etc). As a result of him making his choice he faced s lot of pressure, quite rightfully, and then he decided…

I don't think it is innocent; I think it's overtly offensive to many, including some of my best friends.

I also don't think this is a good precedent to set.

Yes, in this case it's all good and virtuous, but there is now an amorphously defined line for what you can or can't support politically.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#247

Post by jamespo »

gnarbarian wrote: post #211
csallen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being gay/black/female/disabled/etc isn't a choice, therefore I don't believe businesses should be able to discriminate on that basis. Being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, therefore it doesn't make sense for the government to make laws protecting such groups imo.

>being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, I'm not so sure. Maybe they were brought up that way. You can't choose your parents or your religion in that respect. Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not, should it be OK to discriminate against them too?

This is an attempt to reframe the argument and is relevant to Eich how? Was he brought up in an anti-gay cult? He's an adult, stop trying to claim he has no responsibility.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#248

Post by croon »

sangnoir wrote: post #194
Frondo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job." I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla, but I'm 100% it's a non-zero number. They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8. I couldn't say whether they did, being neither gay nor a mozilla employee, but I could imagine it…

> I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla...They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8 Does that mean CEOs/management should be forced to resign for donating to the Trump campaign if some of their employees are Mexican immigrants or Muslim?

So you're saying that Trump's policies are discriminatory against specific groups of people?

Based on that premise, sure.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#249

Post by a_imho »

fowlerpower wrote: post #100
sverige wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general I think people ought to look at Google much more skeptically than they used to and all of the technologies that they push for. They all in some way push their agenda forward. I've been skeptical of Google for a long time, and quit using them as much as possible since they rolled out "Don't be evil." Talk about telegraphing the punch.

It's funny how corporate marketing works. For a long time I used to really love their products and their processes. Maybe it was when they got rid of "don't be evil" but at some point they started turning into just another corporation. A corporation with a ton of resources and a ton of people's information. Anyway I don't want to go into a rant but lately everything they do even the open source stuff is just to furth…

Maybe I'm stretching a bit, but Snowden was the nail in the coffin. Even if you are American, it is very hard to define evil in a such a way to defend their participation in PRISM.

That code of conduct just make it worse they were caught red handed, and I can very much understand people who completely lost their trust in the company.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#250

Post by ZoF »

orf wrote: post #244
ZoF wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no evidence he is closer to the former and all this is is justification for cultural Marxism. The only thing that an individual should be judged on at work is actions/comments/etc. made at work. If you'd like to argue otherwise I'd hope you at least have something more formally define-able than 'he was trending towards being a neo-nazi'. I'd also expect you to be able to point to an authority for defining th…

Nobody black would hang a confederate flag in their living room.

Ironically I asked that the because the black people living in the apartment next to me do have a confederate flag in their living room(among _many_ others).

They also scream white power around the campfire when drunk though so perhaps not typical.

Post reply on HN