301–310 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and raise prices for everyone?
You appear to be confusing the cost of something verses the price of something. I can eat junk food cheaply every day, I pay the price later.
Let them eat cake?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used Brave for awhile, but it got too crypto which made it feel scammy.
I just don't understand this take. In every Chrome gripefest thread, there will be a comment about switching to Firefox that's at or near the top, and then a comment about Brave closer to the bottom. With half the replies to that comment being about crypto, or even smaller niche players like Vivaldi that are closed-source and don't even have an iOS version. Look, I'm not into crypto. But it takes me about two clicks…
Fairly easy to understand, for many Crypto is synonymous with 'bad actor'. Which isn't exactly without merit given the number of schemes, scams and outright law breaking elements that have surrounded the topic.
It doesn't matter if its legitimate, people will still understandably have issues with it.
There are people in the comments saying Firefox is super slow compared to Chrome but modern computers are genuinely so fast I can't notice a difference. At least on my Core 2 Duo ThinkPad T61 I use regularly I have to do some comparisons on what the best browser choice is but on my main PC with a Ryzen 5 7600 and 32GB of DDR5 RAM it hasn't even really occurred that one is faster than the other. I use LibreWolf.
I can comment that FF feels slower on iOS but it makes so little difference these days. We’re talking small fractions of a second.
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
>3. All services that you don’t pay for you are the product. I certainly don't feel like I am the product when I use Wikipedia.
Do you think large corporations will donate to support Chrome developers who get paid at the level of Google employees?
People aren’t willing to donate to support Firefox. It’s funding mostly comes from Google.
This appears to be the same as this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 Top comment on that one was: Key actionable info: to fix this, go to this URL: chrome://settings/adPrivacy and turn off the toggles on each of the three subpages. Alternatively, go to this URL https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/ to fix this permanently.
I'll check back in a few weeks time to check whether Google has sneakily enabled them without my intervention...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s targeted at the author of this article and not the people doing the tracking.
I think that the point is to make the author understand exactly why it's creepy, so that next time they write something like this, they actually see the problem. I'm not advocating this approach. But it's not entirely off base.
Further this is a pro-privacy article. The author seems to have a good grasp of the situation and has communicated it well to a general audience. It even concludes with how to turn the feature off and a call to reconsider how your data is being used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Chrome at work and Firefox on personal devices (including my Android phone). As a heavy user of both browsers, as far as I can see there is really no downside to Firefox. In fact, even though presumably there are way more engineers working on Chrome than on Firefox, I guess most of Chrome's engineering effort goes towards benefitting advertisers, not users. While Chrome seems entirely stagnant since I adopted i…
Chrome Mobile is the largest reason I would not recommend an Android (specifically Pixel) device to friends or family. I bought one, and I found myself actively avoiding browsing the web on it. Even after installing Firefox you can’t get rid of the Google Chrome web search bar on the home screen, and in-app web views are Chrome, so you’re never really free from Chrome. I do understand the why of ads, and I’m okay wit…
The in-app views can be Firefox by just setting it as the default browser. Lest we forget, at least Android has an actual Firefox implementation, versus iOS which does not. Not sure what you're talking about, but if you bumped into certain cases where a Chromium web view would be better for compatibility, you can use a Chromium-based fork, like Bromite, Vivaldi, or Brave, all of which can fit the bill.
The only exception I can think of is Facebook, which comes with a highly customized web view meant for tracking users, but it's not using Chrome directly. And on Android it is the custom to also allow opening links in the external browser, and even Facebook has this option (Settings -> Preferences -> Media -> Open links in external browser).
The only edge that Chrome has is the deeper integration on the "Install app" menu option for websites that integrate with SSB/PWA. Otherwise you can safely uninstall or disable Chrome completely (which I do).
I have a Samsung S21 Ultra, with 512 GB of storage. I can download torrents straight to my phone via LibreTorrent. The other day I downloaded 3 seasons of Star Trek Picard and started playing them on my TV. But first, I used Firefox with uBlock Origin installed to navigate a Pirate Bay mirror. The entire scenario is only possible on Android.
Can anyone explain to me why this is worse than third-party cookies? *If* this lets chrome remove third-party cookies, doesn't it effectively increase your privacy by putting that tracking data on the user's machine instead of having random third-parties involved in every page load to harvest that tracking info? I understand that you can currently turn off third-party cookies, but a bunch of the internet breaks if yo…
It's MUCH worse, because if this catches on in any significant way, it makes Google the main (eventually only?) provider of demographic data for audiences/tracking. Google already owns the browser market and almost owns the advertising market, but if you want to try to play outside with your own SEO/direct marketing strategy you may be able to make it work. But in a world where cookies/independent tracking is dead an…
If anything, it is leveling the playing field. All ad networks will get the same interest data, rather than the ones with a higher reach 3rd party cookie having more information.
We have a few options for monetizing on the web: 1. Sell stuff (e-commerce, subscriptions, services). 2. Sell ads (every website that's free except Wikipedia). 3. Ask for donations (Wikipedia). I'm tongue and check for numbers 2 and 3. But with money coming in, people get paid. If you don't get paid, you don't eat. If you don't eat, you don't poop. If you don't poop, you die. To sell ads, websites need to be able to…
> To sell ads, websites need to be able to show what demographics of people have clicked on ads Not really. You just need to look at any normal billboard; advertisers bought that billboard, even though it knows nothing about demographics or "attribution". Tracking just makes advertising more cost-effective. To the advertiser, not to me. I'm not an advertiser; I gain nothing from the cheapness of advertising. It makes…
This appears to be the same as this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 Top comment on that one was: Key actionable info: to fix this, go to this URL: chrome://settings/adPrivacy and turn off the toggles on each of the three subpages. Alternatively, go to this URL https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/ to fix this permanently.
I use Chrome at work and Firefox on personal devices (including my Android phone). As a heavy user of both browsers, as far as I can see there is really no downside to Firefox. In fact, even though presumably there are way more engineers working on Chrome than on Firefox, I guess most of Chrome's engineering effort goes towards benefitting advertisers, not users. While Chrome seems entirely stagnant since I adopted i…