341–350 of 394 posts
This is truly disturbing, and trying to sneak it in like this without public discussion is disingenous. Hopefully it will be shot down like last time - at the very least, there are surely antitrust issues here.
Whether it's AMP or manifest 3 or android source shenanigan or attempts to replace cookies with their FLOC nonsense or this...Google is rapidly turning into a malicious force when it comes to the open internet
> AMP My god AMP was such an annoying thing ~4-5 years ago when I was working in a marketing-forward web dev shop. "Google really likes when you pipe your words into their shitty UI because it saves some time for the user" We were all like, cool so on one hand we're being given complex designs for sites to differentiate them, and on the other hand we're bowing to a megacorp who actually wants to skip the whole web de…
It's a shame this part didn't stick. I use reading mode every chance I get be cause the more design a page has, the worse it is. For some reason orgs agreed that it is ok to let medium or substack own their content, but hated Google's high speed CDN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did you see that made you think that? (It's entirely untrue btw.) We haven't said anything specific about genai articles but if you've seen https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 it shouldn't be hard to extrapolate.
Both comments appeared as [dead] within a few minutes of being made, despite not appearing as [flagged]. They're visible now, but still. What caused them to appear as [dead] in the first place?
[flagged]
> Do you seriously think that if Google sees the same hardware identifier 1000s of times a day they are not going to consider that usage to be fraud? Phones are very cheap, especially refurbished phones. Just have the phones mimic real life sleep/wake cycles and take occasional breaks. Use 25% more devices to account for the loss in uptime. Besides, some people (often unemployed or disabled, and possibly with sleep d…
And the cost for the bot farm being detected is very high because if a phone's root key loses trust it destroys the value of the ~$30 phone they purchased. And of course, I'm sure Google can use the phone's value as another signal for trustworthiness, treating cheaper phones many generations behind as less trusted.
I don't think bot farms will go away completely, but the price will spike massively, which is all you need to discourage many types of abuse. Some Googling show that reCAPTCHA solves are about $0.003 each right now, so quite cheap. With this new reCAPTCHA, I suspect the price will jump massively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you think identifies never need to be verified? Seems like a central function in operating an accountable society, hence birth certificates, passports, etc. Verifying identity for specific services tied to your finances or body is a whole different topic. > if a website owner only wants to provide access to their website to people with verified identities, why is that not their right? I like the GDPR's general p…
A mechanism to verify identity does not preclude a mechanism for anonymous verification of other attributes. I do not see why someone else should be able to tell you (a business or person) who you have to allow access to your computers and your bandwidth that you pay for. Costco has the right to verify my identity when I walk into their store, I don't see why computing resources would be different.
The spirit of the law isn't to tell you that, it's to limit how much you can track people without their consent.
> Costco has the right to verify my identity when I walk into their store, I don't see why computing resources would be different.
That falls under "Verifying identity for specific services tied to your finances or body". You bought a membership, they're checking your membership.
If it was a store without a membership, then for practical purposes in real life we let them look at your ID but they shouldn't be allowed to record any identifying data off of it. When it's all done by machines we should use cryptography to make it anonymous from the start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm asking what features force me to use Chrome instead of Firefox or Edge or Safari. I've yet to hear an answer other than it's advertised heavily and that it's popular.
There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge, but some websites don't work with Safari or Firefox because Google has pushed nonstandard stuff. And it's weirdly not only advanced WebWhatever stuff, but also some things that affects basic features like forms. Though sometimes they have a separate mobile site that was tested in iPhone Safari. I find the discrepancy kinda minor though. It's enough that I hav…
This is what I mean. How is it a "monopoly" when one can easily just use something else?
The only thing people are saying its "its a monopoly because it has high market share". But a high market share does not a monopoly make, there's more to it than just purely market share. A monopoly requries outsized market power, something that to me at least it doesn't seem like Chrome, the web browser has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's size and market power Finally one states something other than its a monopoly because it has market share or because its advertised heavily. Its a monopoly because it allegedly has market power . But does it, really? > If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power. Is it that it has power or just that its currently popular? I once again ask, what features actually force me to use Ch…
> I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim. It's a core, critical part of a monopoly abuse claim, not a monopoly claim. I don't want to get in that argument. They don't have some weird ultra low market power for their size. They're a monopoly.
> It's size and market power.
We both agree on the size. Its the most popular browser for sure. And I agree, a monopoly generally has to be quite large and it doesn't need to be 100%.
When I ask you for evidence of the market power side of the monopoly claim, you just throw up your hands and say "I don't want to get in that argument", make some claim about the self-evidence of their market power, and then just assert they're a monopoly.
I'm just asking someone to actually point out how Chrome, the web browser has outsized market power. Not just restate they have high usage numbers, but actual instances showcasing their market power. Real studies about how sticky Chrome actually is. Anything like that. But nobody here will actually point to anything other hand waving about how much its marketed and what not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge, but some websites don't work with Safari or Firefox because Google has pushed nonstandard stuff. And it's weirdly not only advanced WebWhatever stuff, but also some things that affects basic features like forms. Though sometimes they have a separate mobile site that was tested in iPhone Safari. I find the discrepancy kinda minor though. It's enough that I hav…
> There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge This is what I mean. How is it a "monopoly" when one can easily just use something else? The only thing people are saying its "its a monopoly because it has high market share". But a high market share does not a monopoly make, there's more to it than just purely market share. A monopoly requries outsized market power , something that to me at least it doesn'…
High market share almost always means high market power. That's why people focus on market share since it's easy to cite.