Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

lapcatsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 372 posts

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#361

Post by lmm »

BoorishBears wrote: post #332
lmm wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is you patch the console to display the objects without calling their toString methods.

I don't think that works I might be off here, but I imagine console.log early exits if there's no console open, so it doesn't call toString If that's the case you can just write to the console in a loop and immediately know if one is open

> I might be off here, but I imagine console.log early exits if there's no console open, so it doesn't call toString

The point is to avoid calling toString when the console is open, by using some other way of displaying logged values.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#362

Post by Closi »

BrendanEich wrote: post #351
Closi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've just tried brave search and it does seem to be a good product actually - my only concern with all these providers is what is the monetisation strategy will be (Brave has called out ads, but it's not in their product at the moment). Looking at Brave's monetisation strategy for their browser it seems pretty shady (effectively steal the revenue from site owners for referral links and replace the websites ads with t…

Why do you post false stuff like "replace the website ads with their own ads"? We never did that and would not unless website were partnered and getting 70% of the gross. The affiliate link autocomplete for finance.{us, com} was a bug and fixed immediately. Browsers other than Brave have a hard time surviving without being captured by a search or other big-tech power. We're the only user-first, private browser with o…

I might be confused, but was the below article just false? If so you should probably ask them to put a correction on it.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3292619/the-brave-brow...

These seem pretty cut-and-dry, but if they are false they should definitely retract.

> We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing.

I personally don't want revenue sharing - I just want the first browser that is user-first and private. The issue with me being advertised to isnt that I want a cut of the revenue, it's that I don't want to be advertised to. That's the whole point of my post - if you need revenue just charge me for it. Why can't we just have a search company that will just let me pay them money in a straightforward 1950's-style transaction.

All I'm saying is - Please don't try to beat Google Search at being Google Search with the same ads-in-search model - you have such a great opportunity, and clearly the experience, to do something different! I personally hope you choose a different path that allows you to have a better ad-free product. Maybe you will succeed going down the ad-route, but I personally want a different option to having my results stuffed with ads, rather than just a new (either better or worse) Google.

As soon as you do a paid version of search I'll be a subscriber, as long as there is a guarantee that it is privacy-preserving, will never have ads, is a sensible price and isn't linked to some weird crypto stuff.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#363

Post by ksec »

ashtonkem wrote: post #350
Bellamy wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so?

Apple doesn’t make money from ads (yet), so there is no harm and a lot of marketing benefit in pushing privacy from ad trackers. Google is an ad company, so good privacy controls in Chrome hurts them.

>Apple doesn’t make money from ads (yet)

Apple doesn’t make money from web ads (yet). Although even that is changing as Apple now offer personalised Ads in Apps, they might one day offer that on the web as well.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#364

Post by ashtonkem »

FractalHQ wrote: post #352
ashtonkem wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn’t make money from ads (yet), so there is no harm and a lot of marketing benefit in pushing privacy from ad trackers. Google is an ad company, so good privacy controls in Chrome hurts them.

Safari privacy is a joke until I can install UBlock Origin on MacOS and iOS Safari. Until they support proper browser extensions outside of their App Store, Safari will remain a privacy leaking toy compared to chromium and gecko browsers. Also the amount of bugs and missing features I face in Safari as a web developer is a nightmare. Cute animations though.

I’d argue that Apple’s incentives are mostly aligned for privacy on Safari, but the incentives for it to spend its resources on Safari in general are not aligned. Apple has long had a native-app only outlook which has hampered its work on browsers for a long time.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#365

Post by p_j_w »

ipaddr wrote: post #211
p_j_w wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Make a useful feature difficult to discover, then remove it when few people discover it. How many people do you really think would ever need this feature in day to day use, even if it were extremely easy to find? The number is probably vanishingly small.

Millions. Big world out there

Percentages are all that really matter here.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#366

Post by kelnos »

drran wrote: post #176
throw_m239339 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I give Firefox browser engine 5 years top before Mozilla becomes Chromium based. Servo WAS meant to be the future had Mozilla continued to fund its development, there is no way around that fact. Yes, it was experimental, but so where every other browser engines/forks when they started. Mozilla lost a lot of goodwill when they fired Servo team and most of the Rust developers.

Why we need two Chrome's?

I don't think we do, but I think there's value in another large-minority browser that is based on Blink (not Chromium). It should have all the compatibility that Chrome has, but none of the privacy issues. Mozilla could potentially pull that off, but it'd likely mean more or less starting from scratch (not sure how much of the UI they could reuse, if any), so I wouldn't expect that to happen except as a last resort.

I do feel like most of the arguments against Firefox boil down to either website compatibility or performance issues. Using Blink as their rendering engine would kill the first concern completely. I'm not sure if Firefox's current performance issues (real or imagined) are due to the rendering engine or UI, so not sure where that would land.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#367

Post by BoorishBears »

lmm wrote: post #361
BoorishBears wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that works I might be off here, but I imagine console.log early exits if there's no console open, so it doesn't call toString If that's the case you can just write to the console in a loop and immediately know if one is open

> I might be off here, but I imagine console.log early exits if there's no console open, so it doesn't call toString The point is to avoid calling toString when the console is open, by using some other way of displaying logged values.

I'm saying you can't avoid calling toString.

Their code will call console.log(object) every X ticks.

As soon as you open the console, console.log fires instead of early exiting => object.toString is called => they know the console is open

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#368

Post by codezero »

laumars wrote: post #360
codezero wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you pointed out about subjectivity. I think it’s still worth discussing though to serve as a warning to others who act with their own best intentions only to have them get bitten. Without calling this out it just always leans on the malicious side which doesn’t trend with reality in my experience. In terms of end users driving decisions ultimately, I agree. That said, this is a discussion forum so I…

The problem is any such discussion is going to be entirely speculative. Sure, you can discuss what you presume the developers motives might have been but it reveals more about the opinions and personalities of the people holding the discussion than it does about the developers since all you’re doing is projecting your own story to fill in some pretty sizeable blanks.

But what many others in this thread have done is just as speculative, assuming malice, and to be clear, I think it could very much be the case, but I’m sharing another perspective based on a lot of experiences I’ve had where external parties assumed malice when internally it was far from it. Take it or leave it. This is the internet and I’m typing into a box.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#369

Post by sroussey »

BoorishBears wrote: post #367
lmm wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I might be off here, but I imagine console.log early exits if there's no console open, so it doesn't call toString The point is to avoid calling toString when the console is open, by using some other way of displaying logged values.

I'm saying you can't avoid calling toString. Their code will call console.log(object) every X ticks. As soon as you open the console, console.log fires instead of early exiting => object.toString is called => they know the console is open

Well… you can on a lot of things. We never did .toString() on a whole lot. However, I was big on .displayName (as an override on .name which is found on functions)

My memory is fuzzy, but I also had a different function I would call if frameworks added it so instead of “Object {}” it was “Backbone.Model {id=1}”.

I put these in and used them in firebug extensions I wrote for frameworks.

Later I asked chrome to add something, which is why there is a “enable custom formatters” option for the console. Really needs to work in the debugger though.

Re: Google Chrome to remove detailed cookie and site data controls

#370

Post by lmm »

BoorishBears wrote: post #367
lmm wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I might be off here, but I imagine console.log early exits if there's no console open, so it doesn't call toString The point is to avoid calling toString when the console is open, by using some other way of displaying logged values.

I'm saying you can't avoid calling toString. Their code will call console.log(object) every X ticks. As soon as you open the console, console.log fires instead of early exiting => object.toString is called => they know the console is open

> console.log fires instead of early exiting => object.toString

The point is that you patch the console to not do that.

Post reply on HN