341–350 of 448 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like searching for "iPhone" literally presented an ad for the Samsung Galaxy at the top, for a while. That's how ads work. If Samsung pays more money than Apple to show ads to people searching for "iPhone", then people will see Samsung ads.
I'm curious then; would Google list Firefox and other competing services before their own?
This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
I find that very worryingly vague. In my reading though, that only applies to YouTube itself ("the Service"). It seems to be saying that your Google account can lose access to YouTube, not that you can lose access to your Google account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This of course. Why is anyone in the least surprised that Google doesn't want the ads that fund Chrome (and everything else they do) to be blocked by the users of Chrome. Shall Google fund our nice things (like Firefox, Chrome, gmail, google maps, etc etc) with hopes and dreams in place of cold hard cash? The audacity. Clearly an unpopular opinion here, but anyway: I'm happy to let a few ads slip through (which I wil…
It's not either/or, just like you can have a factory making cheap widgets without letting that factory pollute the local river with industrial waste. Ads are funding the Internet only because it's the easiest legal business model to pull off, so everyone gravitated to it. But it's not like there wouldn't be money for self-driving cars without adtech, and in reality, them being tied with advertising companies only ens…
I'm convinced that in a world where collecting anonymous micropayments was as easy as serving ads, the web would look at lot different.
People look at this as a choice between paying $5 a month for every website they visit, or getting it "free" with ads. But in a world with good micropayments, most websites wouldn't cost $5. Outside of the biggest players, most sites aren't currently making $5 a month per user via ads.
This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
I think it depends on how "the Service" is defined. As "Service" is capitalized, it is likely defined in the TOS, and may only apply to Youtube (not Google as a whole). So I believe you (and the redditor) are reading that passage incorrectly. (IANAL, and I have no clue if what I said is right).
They are being very stupid. Switching primary browser isn't trivial, but it's easier than wading through an ad-laden web. Goodbye Chrome, hello Firefox.
You're not their target. It's the less technical people they have in mind here.
And we are the ones that makes suggestions. And end users then make same suggestions to other people.
Word of mouth I believe is a VERY important marketing tool.
Basically if Chrome looses people that brought them market share in the first place... I think market can shift. Not that it happens fast enough. But having some market share for Firefox is important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately, a lot of less technical people have technical people in their immediate families and circles of friends.
The big question is, how many of those less technical people switched to Chrome because of technical friends or family and how many switched because of Google abusing its monopoly by displaying deceptive ads for their browser on all web real estate they own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh no, he doesn't think they are stupid, just that they don't know the difference between browsers. If my mechanic mounted a new transmission or something that wasn't the same brand as the one mounted before, and told me "it's the new version", I couldn't care less as long as it worked as intended. I don't know anything about transmissions, so from my point of view I have no way of knowing if what he's telling me is…
If my mechanic mounted a new transmission from another brand without telling me beforehand that he intended to do so, and I found out later, then I would immediately lose all trust in such a mechanic.
I understand the grandparent point, but their analogy is terrible. When you are paying for a specific brand of item and you get an alternative brand without being informed and giving consent, that is fraud. It is a crime, and it is effectively stealing from you the difference in price/value/cost of the two items, since you're paying for the other brand.
Meanwhile me laughing in Firefox. I hope no one here is surprised by this G was more and more anti ad-blocking for years now. This is only natural conclusion after u are a de-facto browser monopoly.
You won't be laughing for long, I believe. See this FAQ: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest... Note how they say: "We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest and are working with add-on developers to gain a better understanding of how they use the APIs in question to help determine how to best support them." "No immediate plans" is weasel-speak, as is "[we] are working with add…
https://gist.github.com/Lusito/dd6b76b93f83267903619103745cc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my mechanic mounted a new transmission from another brand without telling me beforehand that he intended to do so, and I found out later, then I would immediately lose all trust in such a mechanic.
In automotive, there's a rich third-party ecosystem of replacement parts manufacturers. Even the original vehicle manufacturer might purchase the parts from several of them. You, as an typical end-user, have practically no chance to find out, whether the replacement part is "original" or not.
This is not as terrifying to me as the other news brought to my attention by a post in today's Reddit's r/YSK, that if you use Adblock, your gmail can be closed. In the new TOS of Youtube [1], it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down: YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’…
> YouTube may suspend or terminate your access, your Google account, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we believe there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms?preview=20191210
Edit: just to be cristal clear, yes, YouTube can terminate your Google account