431–440 of 642 posts
Everybody imagine going back 15 years and tell yourself that you're using a web browser made by the parent company of DoubleClick. Your 15 year ago self would think you're a moron (assuming that 15 years ago you were old enough to know what DoubleClick was).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics. And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes. IIRC from the dev tools, it was about 1/10th of a second difference to get readable content.
> And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes Reread my previous post. You didn't load it from a SERP. That's what AMP is useful for, instant loading from link aggregators. > AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics. How, especially considering that Google's browser does not share AMP URLs? Is RSS a problematic project? How about GTFS or microdata?…
Per research tests which look at load times and abandonment, under 1 second has the same retention as instant. So, AMP provides no practical benefits here.
> How [is AMP problematic]?
A large number of electrons have been spilled on this topic. I recommend reading one of those. It really comes across as an attempt to argue in bad faith by ignoring these well-distributed (especially on HN) concerns; even worse to try and paint RSS and similar as harmful.
Thank you for the conversation, good luck!
Mozilla is the only internet entity I can say I trust, I am donating to it, and yet I am using Chrome and Brave on both Desktop and mobile.
Just follow the users and fork it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> says that specific header can't be used to identify you That's not what it says. It says the header won't contain PII, which is true. It can be linked to PII, but so can literally every bit of information you send to Google while logged into or otherwise using their services. A disclaimer to this effect would not have any purpose.
That's the whole point. Using any Google service means they can easily personally identify you, that's what the privacy policy should explain. That's their policy towards privacy, you don't have any. For some reason I can't fathom, you claim mentioning this in their privacy policy "would not have any purpose". Instead of honesty, their privacy policy is a wonder of public relations where it seems like they care deepl…
Under this formulation, Google's policy is (presumably, lacking any data to the contrary) honest with respect to this value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" involuntary, unpaid guinea pigs. No consent. No opt-out" That sounds like all A/B testing...
That sounds like all A/B testing... In the tech world, maybe. But not in the real world. For example, one of the colleges I went to was in an area with a lot of pharmaceutical companies. My friends would A/B test drugs for the companies. They made enough money to pay for college. But it was all completely consensual, with contracts and disclosures, etc... Companies in the increasingly morally bankrupt SV bubble just…
Wow. I don't even know how I feel about it anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> says that specific header can't be used to identify you That's not what it says. It says the header won't contain PII, which is true. It can be linked to PII, but so can literally every bit of information you send to Google while logged into or otherwise using their services. A disclaimer to this effect would not have any purpose.
If I log in to my Google account once, they can associate that browser id with my account. Even if I log out, clear my cookies (and probably use the incognito mode), Google will be able to identify and follow me all over the Web. I don't know about your PII thing, but it's personal data under the GDPR.
Downvote me how many times you want, but Mozilla needs to fork Chromium, degoogle it and fix the web. Mozilla is the only internet entity I can say I trust, I am donating to it, and yet I am using Chrome and Brave on both Desktop and mobile. Just follow the users and fork it!
Downvote me how many times you want, but Mozilla needs to fork Chromium, degoogle it and fix the web. Mozilla is the only internet entity I can say I trust, I am donating to it, and yet I am using Chrome and Brave on both Desktop and mobile. Just follow the users and fork it!
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/8/18300772/microsoft-google-...
Downvote me how many times you want, but Mozilla needs to fork Chromium, degoogle it and fix the web. Mozilla is the only internet entity I can say I trust, I am donating to it, and yet I am using Chrome and Brave on both Desktop and mobile. Just follow the users and fork it!
Some don't like their model to tip content providers but they seem - and I've not made rigorous enquiries here (please inform!) - to be a relatively trustworthy mod of Chromium!?