I’m going to laugh if Elon buys it.
Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
101–110 of 345 posts
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.
Why is tracking a bad thing? It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.
Only if you believe that the current mode we are in is good.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.
Why is tracking a bad thing? It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.
Was tempted to downvote. But hey, we’re supposed to talk about things.
Do you support the abstract argument that
________ allows better monetization of _________ which is good for everyone.
??
If so, we can agree to disagree. If however, “it depends”, I think you need to clarify why your proposition is true where other variants (e.g. “Indentured servitude allows better monetization of the lower classes which is good for everyone”) are very clearly not so.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I for one don't want to pay $15/mo for my browser: I'm happy for it to be the complement of some company's product.
Yet you pay for Netflix and your internet and phone bill. But these could be given away by surveillance advertising firms to snoop your watching, surfing, and calling habits. As the saying goes, if the product is free, YOU are the product.
My ISP is selling my data as well. Netflix is snooping on what i watch for their ads. Chrome is free. Bigger fish to fry than my web browser snooping on me like your bank selling all credit card transactions your car snooping on your driving and your mobile carrier selling your location.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#105Google is a web business, that’s their whole thing. They made a browser to invest in the web itself because what is good for the web is good for Google, and happens to be good for all of us. This is a panglossian take that belongs in the year 2005. Google is less a 'web business' than it is an 'advertising business', a 'surveillance business', and a 'finance business'. Consequently, it is false that 'what is good for…
Absolutely agree 100% with this.
I would argue that Google is TERRIBLE for the web.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#106You’ve got a monopoly on lemonade because you pay all the grocery stores to be the default lemonade. So we’re going to force you sell your car. I don't think this is an accurate anaology. It's more like, you own the vast majority of grocery stores, and you make lemonade, and you force all the other grocery stores to only sell your lemonade. To put it another way, the problem is not so much that Google shouldn't be pa…
> To put it another way, the problem is not so much that Google shouldn't be paying to be the default search engine, but that it shouldn't own both the browser and the search engine.
If this is the real crux of the case, then is divesting Chrome going to negatively affect DuckDuckGo and Kagi?
My hunch is “no”, and also that search+browser isn’t the crux of the case. I think the real crux is Google owning browser+ad/surveillance-network.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.
Why is tracking a bad thing? It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.
It’s bad at least because people don’t like to be watched or stalked, even if no “real” harm accompanied. Privacy is a thing that most people agree should exist. You can’t always have it, but it doesn’t mean you have to surrender it either. That is, in an ideal world.
It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.
In the real world, targeted ads initially promised to be related to user’s interests but never kept that. You don’t see what’s interesting for you, only what was paid a lot of money for, by people who find your parameters most suitable for their bait, blanket style. Users get heavily underserved their ads and mostly see generic money grab bs instead, cause money ranks better than interests and google is no socialist despite so much pretending.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#108I just discovered that Google refuses to support any assistive tech on Workspaces unless the user is using Chrome: https://support.google.com/a/answer/33864
They can’t be forced to sell soon enough.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#109I've brought this up before, but I never got a response and I'm really interested what people think the business case is here. I keep wondering what a buyer would actually value beyond Chrome's userbase. Chrome is just Chromium with Google integrations, similar to how Edge is Chromium with Microsoft integrations. If a company acquires Chrome, they don't have many choices: re-establish Google integration deals (so the…
I truely believe there is none. There is literally nothing people would pay for. We got ourselves into a situation where browsers have become so complex that they need an incredible amount of resources to get developed but the only way to get any money with them is to either sell the data of your users or have partners that do that (Google paying Mozilla for being the Firefox default search engine).
I literally don’t see a way out of this mess. In fact if Chrome needs to be split off from google, google has no need to keep Firefox alive anymore. If they just stop paying for the search engine default, Mozilla loses 75% of their revenue.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#110What else has Google sold and how did they end up? SketchUp dodged a bullet.