431–435 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I use grapheneos. The only 'feature' I've lost is the ability to use the device to pay at card terminals.
Also Chromecast doesn't work. But these are okay tradeoffs with okay alternatives, so the improved security and privacy is well worth it to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the author isn’t defending analogous behavior. The author isn’t defending Google. There are better ways to make a point than sharing a fantasy about having someone stalked. It’s a joke until it isn’t.
> The author isn’t defending Google. My reading of the thread is that this is the fundamental presumption of the thread. I think your differences with the OP go deeper. > It’s a joke until it isn’t. My reading wasn't that it was necessarily a joke, but making a point. Sort of like threatening to put a camera in the bathroom of someone who says they have "nothing to hide" when discussing the patriot act. It makes the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The author isn’t defending Google. My reading of the thread is that this is the fundamental presumption of the thread. I think your differences with the OP go deeper. > It’s a joke until it isn’t. My reading wasn't that it was necessarily a joke, but making a point. Sort of like threatening to put a camera in the bathroom of someone who says they have "nothing to hide" when discussing the patriot act. It makes the…
You read the thread but did you read the article? This entire thread is based on an emotional over reaction to a misreading of the article.
Top two readings on my end are that this is either a person who really didn't want to write this article that was ordered to, or someone who is trying to be maximally defensive of google without actually lying (possibly someone with nostalgia for the 2000-2005 era when they were the internet's good guys).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This philosophy of thinking every opinion deserves and requires reasoned critique while maintaining decorum is worse than any rude words. The opinion expressed by the author does not deserve more than the two words they were generously afforded.
It’s sad that HN has become a place where there is only room for simplistic one sided rants. That actual journalism is met with angry swearing.
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.
A quick googling says Firefox makes most of its money by making Google the default search. While I'm not suggesting they are doing the same, it does make me feel they are aligned as a business. Apple is the only tech company I know that's primarily funded by customers paying for a product directly. That's why I use Safari.
That Apple has alternative sources of revenue are irrelevant for Safari's present and future. Just to give an example — both Firefox and Safari block third-party cookies, which has an impact on Google's tracking, but have you noticed that neither of them block ads by default? They couldn't even if they wanted to, given it has a direct impact on their cash cow. And Safari's ad-blocking capabilities is what inspired Chrome's limitations from Manifest v3, the latter being more capable, actually.
The more important question is: What happens to Safari if Google's payouts to Apple stop? And there's no good answer.