221–230 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an option in the settings to block third-party cookies. Does that no do what it says?
Yes. You can also disable the new Google topics system.
On Chromium 117.0.5938.48, it sends me to the settings home page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's have an advertising company also have a monopoly on the web browser. What could possibly go wrong?
Chrome is not installed on any desktop computer system by default except for ChromeOS that has 3% market share. Everyone that uses Chrome, went out of their way to download it. I personally don’t use Chrome. But I am assuming your answer is - government should stop people from using their own free will?
Chrome is installed by default on the handheld computer system most people use, with AFAIK over 50% market share. Given that unfortunately more and more people are using handheld computers as their main or even only computing device, this is very relevant.
> Everyone that uses Chrome, went out of their way to download it.
Wasn't one of the drivers for Chrome's popularity that it came bundled with other desktop software people downloaded and installed? These people didn't go out of their way to download and install Chrome, that decision was made for them by someone else.
> government should stop people from using their own free will?
I believe those who want government intervention want it on the browser manufacturer side, not on the user's side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's have an advertising company also have a monopoly on the web browser. What could possibly go wrong?
Chrome is not installed on any desktop computer system by default except for ChromeOS that has 3% market share. Everyone that uses Chrome, went out of their way to download it. I personally don’t use Chrome. But I am assuming your answer is - government should stop people from using their own free will?
Rather, if the authorities were to do anything, they would regulate to redress the imbalance and give back power to users to control how corporations use their data. There is no voluntary solution as it is, and the state says it exists to protect our rights.
I might even be so bold to say it is necessary because advertising is a mental health problem.
Additionally, the monopoly is enforced because of the manipulative brand recognition. Chrome = Google = The Internet in many people’s heads. It is difficult to break this hold without intervention, but if it could be done that would be great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my oral care products on subscribe and save. Automation does make my life better by offloading cognitive load. Such automation doesn’t require third party cookies but the article doesn’t make that claim. The article seems pretty reasonable to me actually. It establishes what a cookie is, then contrasts that with what Chrome is doing, then explains the tradeoffs and Google’s claims, then gives the reader option…
But it's so obviously ideologically bent against privacy that it reads more like manufacturing consent than it does "giving the reader options to make their own choice."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. There are services that you pay for where you are still the product - true 2. There are services that you pay for where you are not the product 3. All services that you don’t pay for you are the product. So the first step is getting people to pay for the service
Another way is to make it problematic for a commercial entity to provide high value services for free. Basically an anti-dumping law, but for digital goods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know which article is better, without reading them?
I think it was rather obvious from the context of this thread that the quoted text indicates that the article linked is of very poor quality. It is not necessary to read the full article before knowing something is of poor quality which is trivially known by anyone who has started reading a book or article and then decided it was not worth their time. I read the article that I suggested was better and I stand by that…
I read the article; it's actually one of the better pieces I've read in that domain (tech news for the general public) IMHO. People say those things (take-downs) about everything on HN. Don't trust the threads - why would you trust anonymous people writing one-sentence hot-take rants, some of whom probably also didn't read the article and are just repeating things.
The Internet tide isn't a reliable indicator of anything, any more than the tide at the beach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's have an advertising company also have a monopoly on the web browser. What could possibly go wrong?
Chrome is not installed on any desktop computer system by default except for ChromeOS that has 3% market share. Everyone that uses Chrome, went out of their way to download it. I personally don’t use Chrome. But I am assuming your answer is - government should stop people from using their own free will?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I might have a PI follow that writer for a bit, so I can helpfully send reminders, to illustrate how badly ill-conceived this take is… That’s not a healthy fantasy. The “following” part is especially creepy. There’s a contact the author link on the site. If you care to contact her it’s just a couple clicks away. No reason to hire a stalker. Why are you so angry at the author and not at the people who actually made…
> The “following” part is especially creepy. I think that was the point. It's an analogy for what the article is talking about. The behavior of Chrome is legitimately creepy.
> Tracking technology can arguably benefit us as well. For example, it could be helpful if an online store reminds you every three months you need a new toothbrush, or that this time last year you bought a birthday card for your mum. fuck off
If not, I don’t think the comment is appropriate.