Live data from Hacker News

Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

lapcatsoftware.com

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#101
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. ads are not useless. 2. without ads, there would be significantly less free content for people to read. 3. politicians are human too, but not the best of us except a few. Yes. It's hip to say ads make things worse, but reality is often much more nuanced. My original point being, many times an external person may think something is intentional when it may very well be a bug or may be there for a good reason. I have…

I don't think anyone is denying the value of advertising to Google or its advertisers. But with fewer ads influencing their spending, readers might have more disposible income left over to fund content.

Might is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#104
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the structure doesn't have any influence at all on the behavior, why do we have regulations against monopolies (at least on paper)?

No one says structure doesn't influence behavior. Intended behavior is not the same thing as actual behavior, and groups of people don't behave like individual people. Metaphors to organisms are just: metaphors. We've known for a very long time that mobs of people will do nasty, destructive things that individuals in the mob wouldn't otherwise do. Corporations will also do nasty destructive things that individuals in…

Did you read the comment I was responding to? They said corporations don't exist and the individual humans deserve all of the blame. I fully agree with everything you said except for "No one says structure doesn't influence behavior"; I think that's pretty much exactly what the comment I responded to argued.

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#106

When you log into Google, you also log into Chrome. This means that you'll have a lot of exceptions for Google websites or else a "clear history" would log you out of Chrome. Not justifying it (I don't use chrome) but that's likely what's happening here.

This is what the “Allow Chrome sign-in” setting is for and is turned off by the post author.

What I mean is that the browser has exceptions for Google and that most likely not all code paths follow the user settings. Still a bug though.

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#107
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one says structure doesn't influence behavior. Intended behavior is not the same thing as actual behavior, and groups of people don't behave like individual people. Metaphors to organisms are just: metaphors. We've known for a very long time that mobs of people will do nasty, destructive things that individuals in the mob wouldn't otherwise do. Corporations will also do nasty destructive things that individuals in…

Did you read the comment I was responding to? They said corporations don't exist and the individual humans deserve all of the blame. I fully agree with everything you said except for "No one says structure doesn't influence behavior"; I think that's pretty much exactly what the comment I responded to argued.

I don't have access to that commenter's state of mind, but I take it to mean that the "corporation" as a singular entity only exists on paper and in fact acts as a group of individual humans. I don't think that's the same thing as saying the structure having _no influence_, especially since that structure pays people and money influences the behavior of individuals. No influence is a much stronger claim than what was made. But I could also just be projecting my thoughts on the matter onto others when I say "no one says structure doesn't influence behavior".

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#108
post #92

Google is playing a dangerous game here and I think it's going to bite them in the butt. First, some history. One thing that made Microsoft successful was a strategy called embrace, extend and extinguish ("EEE"). This is what they tried to do to Java back when it was believed that Java was a threat to Microsoft's platform monopoly since the Java mantra was "write once, run anywhere". Microsoft added all these proprie…

  > Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it
I have to say that things weren't so bright. You were correct that Google had no platform, but Google never had any qualms about doing illegal things. To start with, the average person had no idea what a browser is, they had 'the internet' installed on their computer. Someday 'the internet' had changed on their computer.

How? Well, remember that Windows had (or: has) no equivalent of Linux software repositories. People browsed the internet and downloaded software (including malware) from big download sites. Google sponsored those sites and had google chrome injected in every installer. Think about that when Google talks about 'sideloading Android apps'. People just had no idea, but all of a sudden their internet had changed.

Secondly, Google hijacked other browsers by urging people on the Google homepage to install Google Toolbar (if I remember the name correctly) This provided a different way to spy on user's browsing activity, plus it provided a springboard toward a full chrome install.

Thirdly, Google pushed users aggressively to download Chrome across all of their products. I remember Google telling me on every page that my browser was not Chrome.

Chrome was never an offer from a benevolent party, on the contrary. I have been talking against many a deaf ear that it isn't that smart to install an ad viewer from an ad company, even if the first page load feels more flashy in Chrome. I am glad that people finally are starting to wise up, better late than never. Especially the stupid excuses I heard from tech people that insisted Chrome is the only way has learnt me that tech people aren't as smart as we think they are. Don't take that personally.

We now have to free the internet for the average Joe. That won't be easy if we can't evade consequences from crime as Google can.

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#109
Coincidently, I ran into this same situation last week. Spent way too much time trying to delete some accidental search query from pasting something in the url bar. Tried a bunch of things without luck. Had to manually delete records in a couple of SQLite files under the Chrome profile to make it go away.

Re: Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

#110
post #92

Google is playing a dangerous game here and I think it's going to bite them in the butt. First, some history. One thing that made Microsoft successful was a strategy called embrace, extend and extinguish ("EEE"). This is what they tried to do to Java back when it was believed that Java was a threat to Microsoft's platform monopoly since the Java mantra was "write once, run anywhere". Microsoft added all these proprie…

> Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it I have to say that things weren't so bright. You were correct that Google had no platform, but Google never had any qualms about doing illegal things. To start with, the average person had no idea what a browser is, they had 'the internet' ins…

Thanks, this is too easily forgotten
Post reply on HN