Live data from Hacker News

Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

androidpolice.com

591–600 of 733 posts

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#591

I actually wouldn't mind if the URL bar was replaced with a breadcrumb bar on some sites, like news and forums. Imagine something like Example.com > Worldnews > 2020 > 06 > 14 > Big aquatic monster spotted outside of Tokyo or forum.example.com > Sport > Football > Spain > Real Madrid It could then work like in Explorer in Windows 10, where you can press one of the breadcrumb separators and see a menu with siblings, o…

Very few URLs are perfectly hierarchical in a way that would work with this scheme. For example, look at the URL of this page you're reading now.

I think that's a great example of the benefits though. HN could continue to use their fairly opaque URLs in the background, but instead show something like

news.ycombinator.com > 2020 > 06 > 14 > Google hides full addresses in URL bar on Chrome 85

This makes it easy to not only see where you are, but also quickly click on a part of the address to go to that hierarchy, or a sibling like yesterdays posts. It makes sense that a forum like this would have a way too see all posts from a day, month, or year.

Of course, most if not all users here are comfortable with URLs so they're probably not the ones that would benefit the most. But I think most common users, the ones who Google everything instead of typing in an address, would use the breadcrumb bar while today they probably see the URL as some weird text string they have little interest in or understanding of.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really dislike any attempt to modify strings like this. I find it invariably causes problems in edge cases. What if a site handles slashes differently to how Google expects? Where do GET arguments go? What if I want to modify the URL? Breadcrumbs are great when each part is navigable, but does example.com/worldnews/2020/06 actually lead anywhere, or is it an invalid address for the site? I have absolutely no intere…

Your arguments are definitely salient. However, I think there is something to this idea - a breadcrumb style approach by default in Chrome would encourage developers to use paths in more standard ways that refer to resources, not heavy parameter coupling. As you noted, there are technical barriers to implementing this solution, which might encourage some other good things - servers providing resource discovery so tha…

I address that in my point: Google deciding what paths developers should use is precisely what I don't want. I'll decide what resources should be discoverable on my site, not Google. I'll decide what paths should be valid, not Google.

Google has too much power to dictate standards already, and has been quite happy to use that power for their own sake, rather than the good of the user. I'm not interested in giving them any more.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also dislike the trend to redirect the 'www' prefix to root. My company uses DNS load balancing for a root domain, though, so either I'm misunderstanding you or you're mistaken about what's possible here. We use Constellix's DNS management to have round-robin DNS via multiple A records for 'nxtbook.com'. If you're thinking of some other form of DNS load balancing, would you please clarify?

Multiple A records is fine on root domain, but root can't use CNAME, which is used by some people to implement their dns load balancing (I use cname so I forgot that you can still do it using A records). By using root domain instead of www, your options for load balancing is diminished. Edit: another common use case is hosting your static website on S3 or github pages. Typically it's done by adding a cname entry to s…

Ah, gotcha. We CNAME a lot of things precisely so we don't have to mess with multiple A records.

Definitely simpler, and a good argument against using the root domain.

Thanks for clarifying!

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but then I’m not sure Mozilla would be able to survive if Google stopped their deal with them due to say, adding ad-blocking to Firefox by default. Not the same, but it certainly influences the direction of FF.

This is true, but then again absolutely all browsers are being funded by ads. We are talking Edge, Safari, Brave, all of them. Did you know that Apple does in fact get more money from Google than Mozilla does, for keeping their search engine as the default? 12 billion dollars in 2019. Do you think Apple would activate ad blocking by default and risk losing that many billions of dollars? Speaking of which, Safari's ad…

Safari doesn't ship with an ad blocker, and its content blocking until now has worked fairly well.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can import your passwords into a 3rd party password manager and enjoy having them available on any devices and browsers supported by the password manager. As for bookmark, firefox should be able to import chrome bookmark. It can even import saved passwords and cookies so your active session is preserved.

I don't like to trust too many entities with my passwords. You can't avoid having to trust the browser maker but adding another third party password manager to the mix would just make me twice as vulnerable for no good reason.

Well, you only need one reason to use a password manager.

https://github.com/AlessandroZ/LaZagne

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the goal is to make sure that people never remember the URL and always use Google to get anywhere. Most people probably already do, but maybe increasing their number from 80% to 90% is still worth it. If this is indeed the real motivation, the next obvious target would be bookmarks. What can be done about them? Replace the bookmarked URLs by Google queries? It would be an interesting functionality if Google…

Maybe this is just one of those pet issues that I can't get behind. Hiding "www" does not strike me as some evil scheme to prevent savvy users from bookmarking websites. It just doesn't. They already had the feature you are worried about and it's existed since like 1999. Do you remember the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button? You could bookmark a query and it would redirect you to the first result for that search. It was dis…

[deleted]

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google disappeared tomorrow, Brave would continue to exist and would continue to get updates. Brave does not depend on Google, directly or otherwise. They depend on an open source project called Chromium, which is largely developed by Google, but because it is open source anyone can build off of it. Brave funds their development through the BAT token and through affiliate marketing, both of which are much better f…

> If Google disappeared tomorrow, Brave would continue to exist and would continue to get updates. Microsoft wasn't able to keep developing a browser on their own, I doubt that Brave could. The problem is that a browser nowadays is so complex to develop that you need serious resources to invest in it. Without Google's ongoing development, Brave would not survive. And given Google's changes to undermine ads blockers,…

> Microsoft wasn't able to keep developing a browser on their own, I doubt that Brave could. The problem is that a browser nowadays is so complex to develop that you need serious resources to invest in it. Without Google's ongoing development, Brave would not survive. And given Google's changes to undermine ads blockers, it's going to be interesting to see Brave struggling to maintain their fork.

IE was woefully out-of-date. MSFT then tried to build a browser from scratch. That was a lot of effort, so they decided to fork Chromium (like Brave) instead. What exactly do you think would happen in Google dissappeared tomorrow in their case? Do you think they would go back to trying to build their own browser from scratch? No, they'd just keep developing Chromium. Many (most) changes would probably be upstreamed. Forking a browser and maintaining it is orders of magnitude easier than starting from scratch in [current year]. As you point out, there are not multiple parties building on Chromium, so I'm sure slack could be picked up if Google switches gears. But you're right, maybe Brave won't be able to keep up with upstream changes that make ad-blocking harder. In that case, you can always just switch browsers. In the meantime, however, I'll use the browser that does a better job of protecting privacy by default.

> Right, keep telling yourself that.

Luckily, I don't need to. A browser that blocks ads by default is objectively better for user privacy and security than one that doesn't.

---

> Btw, I actually wonder how what Brave is doing isn't copyright infringement, given they are directly profiting from blocking the ads of publishers. I guess they are small enough to not matter, for now.

They aren't directly profiting off of ad-blocking, so maybe that helps.

---

> I worked on anti-ad-blocking technology. Nothing beats uBlock Origin running on top of Firefox, everything else was strictly inferior.

Have you actually tried Brave? Works better for me, and I've tried Firefox with uB0. Have also tried Chrome with uB0. Brave blocks both ads and tracking more consistently across the board. It occasionally breaks a webpage, but I have reported those to Brave and two of them have been fixed (out of like 5). This process is clearly better for users than everyone having to configure their uB0 Matrix and such separately. Brave is creating a web where all the privacy violating / attention grabbing shit is very much blocked by default in a much stricter way than other options. When this breaks the internet, they fix it and because this fix is part of the blocker it fixes it for everyone.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the goal is to make sure that people never remember the URL and always use Google to get anywhere. Most people probably already do, but maybe increasing their number from 80% to 90% is still worth it. If this is indeed the real motivation, the next obvious target would be bookmarks. What can be done about them? Replace the bookmarked URLs by Google queries? It would be an interesting functionality if Google…

Maybe this is just one of those pet issues that I can't get behind. Hiding "www" does not strike me as some evil scheme to prevent savvy users from bookmarking websites. It just doesn't. They already had the feature you are worried about and it's existed since like 1999. Do you remember the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button? You could bookmark a query and it would redirect you to the first result for that search. It was dis…

"I'm Feeling Lucky" was never discontinued [https://www.google.com]. It just got moved to the bottom of the autocomplete list that appears when you start typing.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave is essentially a repackaged Chrome and does nothing to help undermine the Blink monopoly. They're not directly funded by Google, but their browser depends directly on Google funding Chrome's development.

If Google disappeared tomorrow, Brave would continue to exist and would continue to get updates. Brave does not depend on Google, directly or otherwise. They depend on an open source project called Chromium, which is largely developed by Google, but because it is open source anyone can build off of it. Brave funds their development through the BAT token and through affiliate marketing, both of which are much better f…

> If Google disappeared tomorrow, Brave would continue to exist and would continue to get updates.

"Updates" may be, large, architectural upgrades? Doubt it. There's a reason they didn't start fresh and I very much doubt they'd muster the resources to maintain development were Google to drop it. Google has invested billions, probably tens of billions into Blink engineering.

What I could see happening is Brave forming some sort of a coalition with KDE and the wider open-source community in the better case or trying to switch to WebKit in the worse case as that is exchanging one corporate overlord for another.

Not to mention Brave's VC funded, so they'd want some form of a meaningful exit at some point.

The bigger concern however is not that Google will not fund Blink development, but that it will increasingly implement features that primarily benefit itself and Brave, as a dependent player, will be spending an increasing amount of resources trying not to get eaten by Google's "direction tax", as all developers depending on a 3rd party corporation they're in some sense competitors with find out eventually.

See also Twitter 3rd party client developers or the many AppStore devs Apple burned and ruined their business overnight.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck? A regular user doesn’t understand or care what the technical difference between a “regular” page and AMP is. I wouldn’t call this ignorance per se.

I'm pretty sure regular people can tell the difference between a regular page and an AMP page. The AMP page simply doesn't work right and it's quite difficult to miss that.

Also you have to go out of your way to share the original link so people know what site and descriptive link you are sharing.

AMP adds 2-3 additional actions to that user flow.

Post reply on HN