Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed it is! We have a wonderful mechanism that handles this situation: a free market. We've already seen far greater market share from a browser. That browser lost it's market share when it stopped serving consumers. It lost it so thoroughly that decades and billions later it still can't recoup it. Why would you want the government to hurt Firefox and the other competitors who would be happy to compete with Google…
Its not a free market
Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
341–350 of 779 posts
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should a regulatory body step in? People were saying for years about how evil Google is, along with how limited and how much of a spyware Chrome is. There are alternatives that people can switch to, if they decide to keep using Chrome they should just suffer the consequences.
It's tempting to fall into the trap of feeling smug that you've made the right decision so no action should be taken against a company abusing their market position in a manner that's harmful to the public. Try to resist that temptation, like I have. I too have been using Firefox this entire time, but I don't let that tempt me into apathy towards the state of the industry. You may as well question the purpose of the…
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#343Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#344Stop using chrome/chromium.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#345Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Barr is notably for a surveillance state, more or less. Relying on a pick of Trump's to solve anything in the Valley is a recipe for disaster.
Do you know of a WH official that was ever against the surveillance state? And why does trump picking him make him automatically a disaster? I feel like this is being completely dismissive of any kind of progress that could be made because orange man is bad.
Because President Trump doesn't have a great record in picking nor retaining people.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-...
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ask yourself if you’d be ok with [your browsing history, email, location and search queries] ever being exposed publicly. I already did, and the answer was "Yes, I'd be okay" (although the likelihood of that happening is extremely rare). > Ever googled something embarrassing? Use incognito mode. > Perhaps a medical condition or symptom? I have only one medical condition, which I'm not embarassed to talk about publi…
>Use incognito mode. All this means is that it's not stored on your computer/history. This doesn't mean Google doesn't still have everything from those periods.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pi-hole covers you regardless of browser.
Yes, but also less so every day. Google has already figured out that they should serve Youtube ads and content from the same servers to limit the ability of DNS based ad filtering. DNS filtering is a cat-and-mouse game that DNS filtering tools will eventually lose. Don't get me wrong, I love Pihole and have used it for a while, but I know that I'm on the losing side of this battle.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> harmful to the public. How do you measure this? Does the public include content creators who rely on ads for their livelihood?
Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been. The (bad actors within the) advertising industry are the enemy of people whose livelihoods depend on Internet advertising because they're the ones making ads either bandwidth-hogging, epilepsy-inducing, website-avoidingly annoying, privacy-invasive, or an actual virus/malware vector. This is, directly, what has caus…
Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft?
Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source of real money. Alternatives could, and should!, be considered. But simply cutting off a revenue stream while arguing that the ability to cut off that revenue stream should be protected by regulators is weak at best.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beware the hidden intentions of all sides. Google (and the Silicon Valley behemoths): Currently know a lot of personal information about the citizenry The US Government: Wants to know this information Neither are necessarily deserving of or entitled to this information, so we shouldn't be cheering for either side. Antitrust is less the issue than personal information / privacy / data tracking regulation. Antitrust en…
Is there any reason to think the NSA doesn't have access to most of what US corporations have? Either legally through classified programs or illegally through various methods. It's been confirmed they've had lots of forms of access many times in the past. Seems naive to believe anything would be different today.
I think any data the NSA has would be stringently guarded and only used for high-profile / high-impact cases. If the NSA was constantly feeding data to other agencies about trivialities, then it would raise red flags about where "all this incriminating evidence" came from.
Cases involving StingRay interceptions have been dropped so as to protect the details of such interceptions.
There's also the relationship between the agency and the Government to consider. The CIA don't seem to get along very well with various members of the US Government, and with "good" members such as Ron Wyden, if the NSA was feeding ill-gotten data to the US Govt, then someone like him would probably raise some kind of stink.
This doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether the NSA has this data, it's more about the potential mitigation of the likelihood of the data being actually used against someone.
Much like we don't know where the line is on the potential for Huawei kit to be a threat to national security.
Something. Not nothing.
Edited to add: There's also the very likely situation where Government policy / regulation is put in place to cover all parties, and the NSA ignores this anyway because they're above the law. Everyone else must play by the rules, the US Govt looks to be doing the right thing.
(this isn't a bitter statement, merely that I think this is how things actually work, whether for the US or any other country; realpolitik)