291–300 of 496 posts
The issue is not the fact that Google owns the web. It is that the web itself has become decimated to the point where a company like Mozilla does not have a future. Facebook, Uber, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Whatsapp, etc. None of them are optimized for Google index. Most top consumer internet applications don't take place in your browser.
I would use Mozilla if the browser was just a little bit less bad. Currently it randomly takes me about 5 seconds to move my cursor in the hackernews input box. That is not Google's fault. Mozilla's future is mostly of their own making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something we (people who work in tech) should be acutely aware of is causing unnecessary distractions from important issues. When there's a discussion about the Google very often the first few comments are about how some other tech company also does something unsavory. This is a thread about how Google's engineers are actively working to take over the web as we know it and become the gatekeepers to all the benefit (n…
Worth noting that all sorts of entities employ people to do PR on internet forums, and redirecting and deflecting is a crucial part of their tactics. Not saying that this is happening here, but forums need to be resilent and really focus hard on the issue at hand or be completely played by the professionals.
A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…
Textbook case of 'whataboutism'. Besides, avoiding Facebook is easy. Avoiding Google is impossible. I am much more worried about Google because of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an end-user, AMP sites load faster and with less clutter. The only downside is a clunky URL, but I rarely care about that. AMP improved my mobile search experience. The main AMP concerns seem philosophical, which I don't think OP was asking about.
And this is the problem for anyone outside of the CompSci field. To those it looks like URL non-sense but it's rooted far deeper then that. This isn't philosophical. By choosing to use AMP, you are ultimately choosing to destroy the internet. You're granting the power of one company to run and control what you visit, do, use. Your surrendering your data for them to make money off to use and abuse. Your supporting the…
The larger threat with Amp is signed content, where Chrome address bar drops URL and has only the legal name of the site owner.
A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…
>I think it’s safe to say that Google’s AdWords is the dominant advertising platform on the open Web, which means it holds a commanding position in the Web’s finances. That's a very interesting observation. Google will thus prevent a native payment option at all costs, which leaves a huge opening for Brave or another payment provider. (Which is enhanced by content providers being threatened by AMP.) I don't see Googl…
Can you elaborate on what a native payment option would entail? How would it be different from non native payment options? How would it be different from crypto or other payment options that already exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth noting that all sorts of entities employ people to do PR on internet forums, and redirecting and deflecting is a crucial part of their tactics. Not saying that this is happening here, but forums need to be resilent and really focus hard on the issue at hand or be completely played by the professionals.
I see this claim often and while I don't deny its possibility I have yet to see any evidence to substantiate it.
There have been news articles about governments employing this practice [0], so it is not much of a stretch to imagine corporations doing it.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896