101–110 of 205 posts
Glad I'm a Firefox user.
That helps, but It's still meaningless if your machine has Intel or AMD CPUs running Windows or macOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mentioned by a sibling comment Google will be sued for antitrust reasons if they remove third party cookies as some other ad businesses rely on them. So in order to remove third party cookies Google must provide an alternative for other advertisers to use instead.
I’m a little confused about that idea because it seems like as the article describes it, this locks out third party advertisers from using third-party cookies while giving Google a loophole for their own advertising business.
(Disclosure: until 1.5y ago I worked at Google, including on things related to the privacy sandbox.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, switch to something non-Chromium if at all possible. Which brings us in the paradoxical situation that if you want there to be any choice left at all in browsers then you're pretty much forced to choose firefox.
Why? If tomorrow Google turns next-level evil in terms of privacy / steering the web, Microsoft will have forked Chromium within a week, and everyone (Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, etc) will swap their upstream immediately. People have this illusion that Google has an ironclad grip on Chromium, but they don’t. It’s maximally permissively licensed, the only reason they get to decide much is because they put in (pay) the dev h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, switch to something non-Chromium if at all possible. Which brings us in the paradoxical situation that if you want there to be any choice left at all in browsers then you're pretty much forced to choose firefox.
Why? If tomorrow Google turns next-level evil in terms of privacy / steering the web, Microsoft will have forked Chromium within a week, and everyone (Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, etc) will swap their upstream immediately. People have this illusion that Google has an ironclad grip on Chromium, but they don’t. It’s maximally permissively licensed, the only reason they get to decide much is because they put in (pay) the dev h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hear hear. Of course, on my workstation Chrome is "the recommended browser for internal applications" and firefox is a developer special request which is not allowed to support add-ons
Do they allow extensions on Chrome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you even browse, bro? Profiles have existed in FF for a very long time, I believe even back to the launch of Chrome. I think what Chrome did was made them readily accessible. I might have the history slightly wrong, but FF has had them at least as far back as 2011. Can you please share where profiles have been requested for many years?
I don't compare it to Google's because it's hidden and not readily accessible like Chromium's version therefore I didn't consider them equal. The part that has been requested is to make them accessible and first class and not tucked in behind screens that look like internal "power user" screens
If you care at all about privacy and the future of a free Internet, this really should be that watershed moment that makes you take your head out of the sand. Seriously. Uninstall Chrome today and switch to something else. It’s only if enough people do it that they lose their grip and influence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, switch to something non-Chromium if at all possible. Which brings us in the paradoxical situation that if you want there to be any choice left at all in browsers then you're pretty much forced to choose firefox.
Why? If tomorrow Google turns next-level evil in terms of privacy / steering the web, Microsoft will have forked Chromium within a week, and everyone (Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, etc) will swap their upstream immediately. People have this illusion that Google has an ironclad grip on Chromium, but they don’t. It’s maximally permissively licensed, the only reason they get to decide much is because they put in (pay) the dev h…
Or, Microsoft will be happy with this "next-level evil."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There a plenty of non-ad-driver services that allow hosting blogs for free. Github, cloudfare’s free tier, and many others - and you can certainly find a one-click vm deployment of a blogging platform for less then 5$. I believe this implies that saying that you must have ads to have free online services is a fallacy.
All of those businesses subsidize their sites because they're billion dollar companies. Is that better than just... using ads? > I believe this implies that saying that you must have ads to have free online services is a fallacy. I'm saying someone has to pay for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're talking about the internet when it was tiny and inaccessible, and you're acting like that was good. That's a position to take, but I don't think it's a good one - again, I would not have been able to write my blog for free, the sites we take for granted today would not exist. The only way to actually publish would be to have technical skills and money, which I don't think is good.
It was NOT inaccessible Look up geocities maybe, most providers gave you some free space anyhow
Providers didn't offer free space, you paid for it with your subscription, and you would lose if you changed provider.