Google should do something about the Chrome repo's file size... 65GB+ is kind of ridiculous. Last time I tried to download the thing, I gave up.
They did, Chrome devs fly 128 core 64-128GB workstations, no problem for them.
Chrome, 10 Years Later
141–150 of 175 posts
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#142> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…
> Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction.
It is our right.
These corporations do the exact same thing, they change their little terms of service all the time, often without notice, and we're forced to swallow it. Why is it suddenly wrong when we do it? Because it costs them money? Fuck their money, we owe them nothing.
> Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset: "I hate how this store charges $10 for a banana, so I am just going to pay $2 and take the banana anyway
Complete bullshit analogy. There is no "transaction". There never was, not even once, a "transaction". Only assumptions.
They are not charging us anything. They're giving us the banana for free after putting some advertising stamps on it. They're hoping we'll look at the ads but the fact is we are under exactly zero obligation to do so. We invented technology that peels the bananas automatically and gives us the fruit while throwing the trash away and the ads along with it.
Our attention is not currency, nor can it be sold to the highest bidder. We are under exactly zero obligation to "pay" with our attention. Zero.
> "Cheating", such as blocking ads but using the service anyway is one way to solve that power imbalance and actually put pressure on sites to look for another business model.
Absolutely agree. Businesses are the ones that come to us with their idiotic "our way or the highway, take it or leave it" deals. Functionality such as ad blocking is absolutely vital for consumers because it empowers them to alter the deal. It doesn't really matter what the corporation thinks, the deal is gonna be altered whether it likes it or not.
Such is the power of adversarial interoperability, the nightmare of every monopolist.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the changes possibly being in good faith I don't think you've kept up with the way Google has treated certain extensions if you're still considering the possibility that it's in good faith Anybody remember AdNauseam (still available on Firefox)? It's an adblock that doesn't just block ads but in the background silently clicks…
I agree that they've made questionable decisions, but if an extension is clicking on ads in the background wouldn't that be considered a violation of their ToS for related products that they control.. essentially, a way to game ad revenue? If someone released an extension to silently DDoS ad organizations in the background, even if the user was aware of the purpose, then I'd imagine it would still be against their To…
> a violation of their ToS for related products that they control.
I don't actually think so, but that's not my point. If it was against their ToS, fine. Take it down
But they didn't just do that. They made baseless accusations of malware against this (open-source) project in order to spread misinformation and make people even more hesitant to use it. That's not just an abuse of their platform but an abuse that goes outside their platform
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, AdNauseam is not against relevant Google ToS and no ToS term was ever cited.
If it does as you say then at least in the United States it may actually be considered a form of fraud. By clicking an ad that you've hidden, you're essentially telling the advertiser to pay for something you didn't even see.
regardless, that's not the point. The point is they didn't simply take it down. They actively spread lies about the project
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…
>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).
> following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ?
Yes. Proper video players and media files have support for chapters for the express purpose of skipping what you don't want to see and getting to the point. YouTube refuses to do it because of its stupid advertising bullshit? People will do it for them with SponsorBlock.
> no, the browser job is
The browser's job is to be the user agent. It acts on our behalf and represents our will. Its job isn't to display some website's little ads. Its job is to do whatever we, the users, want it to do, even if it hurts the interests and bottom line of some corporation. If blocking ads is good for users, that's exactly what browsers should do, literally no questions asked.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)
You know how e.g. Netflix requires a DRM plugin in your browser, and some standard for that kind of thing got into the WWW standards? Now that AI with camera access is basically competent to tell if you're watching, it'd be natural to require something analogous to confirm you see the ads. "This website requires Telescreen(TM). Please enable it to continue."
Please drink a verification can to continue.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)
The way i see it (an example) you as a user want to read a story that i wrote in my website but when you request it i'm embedding an ad with the story, it's my right to embed the ad and not showing what i wrote without it and it's your right to not open the website it's not perfect, im using an ad blocker and i can't understand how people can surf the internet without one but hopefully we can find a solution the chan…
> it's your right to not open the website
It's also my right and in my power to open your web site on my browser, delete your ad and read what you wrote. Once your web page leaves your server and enters my computer, it's no longer yours. You are no longer in control. You cannot dictate to me what can and can't be displayed on my screen.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)
>unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style Black Mirror did a delightfully dark take on this, it might have even been the first episode.
Second episode, Fifteen Million Merits.
Guy can buy out the ads, spending currency to skip them. One day he doesn't have the money and is forced to watch the ad. Literally forced. If he averts his eyes, the ad follows them. If he closes his eyes, they torture him with high pitched noise until he opens them. It drives him to the point of physical violence.
It's one of my favorite episodes. The incredible inhumanity of it all, and I bet these ad tech companies would think nothing of it.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#149I will always support Chrome over Firefox because they are not politicizing their project, they just serve you and leave the politics to politicians. They earned their market dominance for being great and supporting things that Firefox did not at the time. I am OK with monopolies of good products, I don't really care about using an inferior product for the sake of lack of monopolies.
"Inferior" is your opinion. I believe Firefox to be superior.
Chrome is winning for a few reasons, least of which is that it is a good browser. I believe Chrome is winning because:
1. Chrome is advertised on the most popular website in the world for free. 2. Chrome is the bundled in both ChromeOS and Android. 3. Some of the most popular sites in the world are only built to work well in Chrome (Blink), ala YouTube, at least in the past. 4. Chrome is a performant web browser.
Chrome is an inherently political project. Google is using Chrome's market leader position to push what it wants on the Web, whether that is standards, Manifest v3, removal of third part cookies, etc. Mozilla is honest about the politicization which mainly revolves around an open Web and freedom of information. Chrome's politicization happens in the background where a normal user wouldn't see it. You seem to have fallen into this trap.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#150> In retrospect I think of this as a failure of leadership on my part. Many years later when Chrome eventually inevitably switched to using Git only, I think it was a multi-year project to dig out from SVN. Had I spent a little bit of time advocating for something that was pretty obvious to me I would've saved those people a lot of time.
I really appreciate this attitude - definitely something I can learn from. It's easy to look back on something and say, "I knew X was the right idea, if only everyone listened to me". It takes maturity to say, "It was a failure on my part for not advocating more for X". It's not applicable to every team or situation, but in general I think it's a much better attitude to have.