591–600 of 614 posts
Hopefully despite Google's fuckups about uBO, there will still be a way to load this on Brave even after it stops being available for Chrome. Chrome's speed on my 2012 mac is still faster than any build of Firefox and Safari is just not as good.
I switched to Brave a few months ago because I knew that Google would have done exactly a move like this. People should simply stop using Chrome because there's not a single good reason left to use it. Once upon a time it used to advertise its complete adherence to web standards, but nowadays it has now become the new IE when it comes to breaking them. And from now on it'll do everything not to harm Google's core bus…
It uses the same extension store though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "opposite" version of that quote makes less sense to me than "other way around" or "reverse". The opposite of "man oppresses man" would be "man doesn't oppress man", no...?
Maybe, I just googled the quote because I didn't remember it exactly. But I think it's actually clear that "man doesn't opress man" is not the intended meaning precisely because that wouldn't make sense.
If you have to use Chromium, at this point it is clear that Brave is a better Chromium than Chrome [0][1] despite its BAT shenanigans. The UX is super nice, and adblocking just works without having to install any extensions. Hopefully Brave doesn't buy into the whole PrivacySandbox thing Google proposed [2]. For everything else, Firefox should be the default [3][4]. It'd be great if Firefox bundles a content blocker…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under post-capitalism, the automated systems serving capital oppress man? ... woman inherits the Earth?
IMHO attribuiting actions to automated systems rather than their owners hides who's actually responsible. If we don't accept abusing power we shouldn't accept abusing power using AI either.
I think the mortgage derivative swaps crisis taught us that. Powerful fools are still fools, and there's nothing about the system as-is that prevents some fools from becoming powerful.
In that sense, it's entirely possible we have bad outcomes from automated systems created by people who don't understand them. And that's the ambivalent case.
The actively evil case is: "How much would I have to pay you to design an unethical automated system?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Blocking it on Spotify is fine. If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem. Youtube's TOS should not get special treatment in unrelated products.
What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? It's not as if Spotify is blocking songs within its own catalog or something: these pirate apps exist outside of Spotify, except they hijack Spotify's streaming service. They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... Spotify has also threatened to ba…
Detecting and blocking those apps from accessing the Spotify servers.
> They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps
Those are modified versions of the official app, violating its copyright. That's not the same thing as blocking a third-party app because it doesn't work the way Spotify likes.
In other words, the app itself is being pirated. That's a completely separate issue from "Spotify Premium features for free".
> Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not.
Sure. I thought you were talking about third party apps, since your second paragraph was about third party apps... A pirated official app is piracy itself. A third party app is not piracy.
It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.
I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Honestly, Google's (and general tech giants') willingness to let people's lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push. More and more, we're seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised…
Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 It goes like this: Google bans or disables something, then they pretend they made a mistake, but still delay fixing it for days or weeks while giving amateurish explanations for these delays. In the end what this tactic achieves, is hampering a software Google disapproves (or competes against).…
I'm curious.. Does Brave have their extensions managed by Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It becomes a monopoly when the supply of browsers is controlled by a single entity and the entry of new market participants is prevented or highly restricted. Having a large market share does not make you a monopoly if you do not control the supply and restrict or prevent new market participants. Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes, and anyone who wants to c…
> Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO attribuiting actions to automated systems rather than their owners hides who's actually responsible. If we don't accept abusing power we shouldn't accept abusing power using AI either.
I wouldn't be able to guarantee "capital" (i.e. people with access to large amounts of it) are smart enough to understand the outcomes of sufficiently complex systems. I think the mortgage derivative swaps crisis taught us that. Powerful fools are still fools, and there's nothing about the system as-is that prevents some fools from becoming powerful. In that sense, it's entirely possible we have bad outcomes from aut…
But actions your automated systems are still your actions, regardless of intentions and outcomes. If we hold people responsible for negligently causing damage, we should also hold them responsible for negligently causing damage using an automated system. And of course, we should positive outcomes a system causes to the people behind it as well.