weird people still accept spyware in chrome whitout thinking about it.
Chrome, 10 Years Later
161–170 of 175 posts
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are trying to anthropomorphise companies and that isn't a sensible way to understand them. The list of people who have your interests at heart: * You (some caveats). * Maybe your family (lots of caveats). As Stallman has been pointing out since the early 1990s, if you give up your freedom you won't be free any more, and other people can do stuff you don't like to you. People still refuse to use that logic desp…
Let me get this straight, you cite Stallman on freedom and then claim that Google hasn't done anything wrong? Google the company that manages the webs most widely used DRM module? You are aware that Stallman and GNU explicitly oppose digital restrictions management in the context of freedom?
I don't understand what issue you are going to. I haven't installed Widevine.
I'm extremely disagreeable, most people do things I think are foolish/detrimental to the general good/philosophically bad. We all get along regardless. The idea that Google does something I don't like that doesn't affect me is not ideal, but is usual in all my relationships with any entity you care to name.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are trying to anthropomorphise companies and that isn't a sensible way to understand them. The list of people who have your interests at heart: * You (some caveats). * Maybe your family (lots of caveats). As Stallman has been pointing out since the early 1990s, if you give up your freedom you won't be free any more, and other people can do stuff you don't like to you. People still refuse to use that logic desp…
I think company can care about certain interests of yours, if you are aligned. That’s why you want to work for a good one. Companies are made out of people and at least some people there care.
Every single atom in my leg could want to go left in its personal capacity as an atom, but they will still go right when my brain decides to go right.
These people aren't in control. What they care about isn't a major factor to be using in decision making. One of the core principles of western law, culture and corporate organisation is to centralise control in a tiny group with extreme amounts of skin in the game.
And those people almost always bend to the incentives they are put under. Sometimes it takes a little time.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I wasn't able to find anywhere that they spread lies about the project. Are you able to share where Google stated that?
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Can you send me a link where they did that?
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Can you send me a link where they did that?
Sure. It used to be on the Chrome Extensions page. It wouldn't let you download the extension and had a big "malware" flag on it. I don't think that's up still but there's articles written about it:
https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_fr...
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#167I actually really like Chrome, well Chromium, despite the negative perception about Manifest v3. I truly hope that they work out the kinks quickly enough to resolve some of the concerns. I do get that the new API in some ways is safer for the average user, but there are power users that should be able to do what they want. Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the c…
The changes in Manifest v3 make a lot of sense. It's absolutely true that we can't trust extensions or their developers and they should be restricted as much as possible. Forcing them to declare to the browser what they want done so that only the browser touches the user's private information is a great idea.
It's just that certain extensions are so important and trusted that it doesn't make sense to restrict them like this. Extensions like uBlock Origin should be a special case in the source code. If it's uBlock Origin, then give it direct access to all APIs so that it can do anything. The rest can deal with Manifest v3.
Truth is uBlock Origin should be literally built into the browser instead of being a mere extension. Only argument against that is conflicts of interest. Google obviously has no interest in properly integrating uBlock Origin and Firefox is funded by Google. Ironically, Brave seems to be the only browser where such a thing could actually happen.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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).
The proper analogy would be that the media player would play random extra videos in addition to what you are watching, in overlays or even opening new windows. Can you imagine VLC working like that? In-video ads are usually OK, the way they do "sponsor" segments on Youtube for example, they are "uninteresting" but usually short and non-obtrusive. Again, I consider these as transactions and don't skip them if otherwis…
> The proper analogy would be that the media player would play random extra videos in addition to what you are watching,
FWIW, its not the browser "including" the adds. The ads have been included in the video itself.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you send me a link where they did that?
Sure. It used to be on the Chrome Extensions page. It wouldn't let you download the extension and had a big "malware" flag on it. I don't think that's up still but there's articles written about it: https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_fr...
Yeah, I saw that one but other stories around the same time say something different. Were you able to find an arhive.org page that actually shows the extension listed as malware?
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#170I actually really like Chrome, well Chromium, despite the negative perception about Manifest v3. I truly hope that they work out the kinks quickly enough to resolve some of the concerns. I do get that the new API in some ways is safer for the average user, but there are power users that should be able to do what they want. Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the c…
The changes in Manifest v3 make a lot of sense. It's absolutely true that we can't trust extensions or their developers and they should be restricted as much as possible. Forcing them to declare to the browser what they want done so that only the browser touches the user's private information is a great idea. It's just that certain extensions are so important and trusted that it doesn't make sense to restrict them li…
Who decides who gets special extensions! Can I make a unlock origin compete and get special permissions? (Then sell my extension later to a shady person)? Its tough to manage exceptions like that