241–250 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, although you can sign in and add to a collection on the site then add to the browser.
Pretty far from user friendly though - not a lot of users will do that, reducing the chance there will be actual demand to fixup the APIs and addons to actually work on mobile.
This reminded me of a library I released in January 2005. Part of the embedded docs from the 2011 release: ;;; The @b{urlskip} Racket library provides a function that translates some of ;;; the Web URLs that might be used to track a user across sites, by removing ;;; intermediate HTTP redirectors or information that might identify the user. ;;; Such a function might be used as part of a privacy-enhancing Web browser,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I feel HTTPS everywhere does not belong in that list. Secure by default doesn't sound evil to me, and Let's Encrypt made it easy enough to get free HTTPS certificates (and for non technical people, almost all hosting services I've seen offer it out of the box)
A static blog that takes no user input/data doesn't need HTTPS. Here's a good lecture about why HTTPS everywhere isn't as important as people think. http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, from the look of it it seems like Mozilla overflows with people determined to make Firefox irrelevant.
They did lose a bit of focus in the past, but I believe they're getting it back with some privacy-oriented side-projects like Firefox Relay. Hopefully they don't go under :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general solution is to do a little of both. The job of the regulators isn't to just kill off specific companies that got too powerful - it's to create conditions where disruption is possible. An important way to do this is to prevent big players from abusing their power to make themselves nearly-impossible to disrupt.
But that's the whole point of the SV business model! Strangle any competition by initially offering your products for free (and funded by huge amounts of VC), and then raise prices at your leisure once you're the last one standing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I feel HTTPS everywhere does not belong in that list. Secure by default doesn't sound evil to me, and Let's Encrypt made it easy enough to get free HTTPS certificates (and for non technical people, almost all hosting services I've seen offer it out of the box)
A static blog that takes no user input/data doesn't need HTTPS. Here's a good lecture about why HTTPS everywhere isn't as important as people think. http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/
We've seen everything from injecting tracking javascript, to injecting their own ads, to outright replacing content with unrelated content that the ISP wants to push.
What I don't get is why Google is allowed to provide a browser and be a major content provider at the same time. If this is allowed to continue then it seems inevitable than an unhealthy monopoly will form where Chrome and its derivatives are the only browsers that can consume the modern web, and where opting out of tracking is not a possibility for anyone but the most technically inclined (although that's almost alr…
What I don't get is why Google is allowed to provide a browser and be a major content provider at the same time. For the same reason you are allowed to make this comment or I am allowed to reply. There is no explicit law prohibiting them from providing a free browser while also being dominant in the content space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I feel HTTPS everywhere does not belong in that list. Secure by default doesn't sound evil to me, and Let's Encrypt made it easy enough to get free HTTPS certificates (and for non technical people, almost all hosting services I've seen offer it out of the box)
A static blog that takes no user input/data doesn't need HTTPS. Here's a good lecture about why HTTPS everywhere isn't as important as people think. http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider buying an iPhone. I'm serious. Google is a spyware company.
Hm, I find Apple crawling through my photos looking for faces pretty creepy. This feature cannot be disabled for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need a regulation that will automatically deal with such monopolies by ordering companies to split after reaching certain thresholds. This way we would never get companies too big to fail.
Then what is the incentive to start a company, grow it within the legal and regulatory framework and when it gets to an arbitrary, non-defined size have the legal and regulatory bodies systematically dismantle it by forcing you to sell it off?
And in US, it was back in the day - but then, thanks to Reagan and Robert Bork, we effectively threw away all the anti-trust legislation that was functioning quite effectively for 80 years. The large businesses, of course, heavily lobbied in favor of that.
So, they have created the present environment - and now that we have seen (yet again) why anti-trust enforcement has to be proactive, they're complaining that it would be unfair to revert to old rules?