301–310 of 345 posts
Arguably, Google divesting Chrome would be great for the web. This piece seems to be looking at Google at large (and I think all of Alphabet would be better scope there). Certainly this would be unpopular here but I would be all for aggressive trust-busting beyond what the DOJ has done historically, including vertical integrations. Right now tech is a strange feudal state with hundreds of thousands of small teams anc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm so confused when I read takes like that. The only way advertising can be sustainable under capitalism is if every $1 spent on advertising generates >= $1 of profit for advertisers, keeping in mind that ad networks take a share of revenue, say 30%. This means that you as a consumer have to spend at least $1 (likely more - profit not revenue) for every $0.70 of value you receive in "free" services. Being supportive…
Reminder than when you use seemingly impeccable logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion, it's the logic that is wrong somewhere because of a missed assumption. No, people are not going to pay much for browsers and websites, that's why ad supported products and services exist. Otherwise someone would make better software and charge for it. The only way this works is government intervention, which is what's happening…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. You do know most of those companies do both charge you and sell your data? Almost the only companies that don't sell your data are big tech advertising companies. "When you don't pay you are the product" doesn't mean "If you pay you aren't the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And those users can then move to a browser that isn't screwing them over, that does support Linux and open source and web standards. Google Chrome is not the only browser possible except to Google shills and sycophants.
They can do that now. I don't think Chrome is a very popular browser for desktop Linux users. Or, at the very least, it is definitely not as dominate as it is on Windows and macOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to? The only thing that comes to mind is password management. But I would also argue that’s a boon for normal users and trust in the web.
Restrict extensions for "security" reasons. Which just killed most ad blockers in Chrome. Speed up the web with AMP that gives one company control over everything.
And AMP is not a browser feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes you wonder if Microsoft had given developers what they wanted, i.e. modern CSS and Javascript support, more browser features, etc., would they have actually moved off of Internet Explorer?
They did? AJAX of jQuery fame, is extremely similar to ActiveX XmlHttpRequest. The problem isn't XmlHttpRequest, but everything else they added/removed. Same with Google. The problem isn't they made request more secure, they made ad blocking impossible.
I think you have two names mixed up: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1600419/xmlhttprequest-v...
This stuck out because I remember jQuery's ajax being a wrapper around XMLHttpRequest (and maybe still is?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you clarify? Does Chrome track you, or do websites track you using cookies stored in Chrome?
By their own admission, "not only does Google collect your name and email address, Google also collects your physical address, your exact location, your contacts, advertising data, product interaction, search, and browsing history." [1] And that's Chrome (a Safari wrapper at that moment) on iOS. You may assume they collect at least as much on platforms they own. [1] https://techstartups.com/2021/03/18/google-finally-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting from Wikipedia here: The stated goal was for sites to be able to restrict access to human users instead of automated programs and "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device". Which on the surface seems like a legitimate use case I have to be honest.
It is, just like having an armed policeman permanently stationed in your living room to protect you is a legitimate use case.