Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web by Google (TM)

landshark.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 496 posts

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#371

Post by seba_dos1 »

kevincox wrote: post #344
eigenvector wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is as big of a purveyor of misinformation as Facebook. I just spent two hours yesterday dissecting all manner of coronavirus misinformation my mom learned from YouTube. The insidious aspect of it is that she never went looking for that - she started off watching legitimate sources like credible media outlets but autoplay took her further and further down the rabbit hole without even realizing she was no longe…

This seems like a weird point when arguing against a closed platform. You are saying that it is hard to report misinformation. If we were using a distributed platform it would be impossible. So in this aspect centralized platforms are superior even if they are closed and not great in an absolute degree.

> If we were using a distributed platform it would be impossible.

Distributed platforms don't prevent moderation; they let you choose your moderator (including no moderator at all).

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#372

Post by izacus »

d3nj4l wrote: post #223
izacus wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Majority of Android devices in western world actually ship with Samsung Browser as default browser, not Chrome. The rest of the market ships with Safari as unchangeable default and rather small part of mobile market is the one with Chrome

Samsung only has ~50% market share of Android phones in the US ( https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... ), and ~40% in Europe ( https://www.counterpointresearch.com/covid-19-weighs-europea... ). Chrome isn't a "rather small" part of the mobile maker in the West.

Yeah, so half of Android market which has about half of mobile market in US.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#373

Post by screamingninja »

jacquesm wrote: post #340
nqzero wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This And I'd argue that google's about the only thing propping up the internet. Chromium's a reasonably open platform (certainly more so than internet explorer, which not that long ago looked destined to become the dominant platform), gmail has kept email viable, android is somewhat open (and without it, apple might own that space entirely), etc Every other player that's gotten traction has set up a walled garden

Gmail is actually a major force in further consolidation of email to a very few number of players. Ever increasing rulesets to be able to send to Gmail from other email servers increase the barrier to entry step-by-step until even the last holdouts will have to pick between a very limited number of parties to host their mail.

Not sure what rulesets you're referring to. I understand the spam prevention techniques (DKIM, SPF) but those are all widely accessible open standards. Could you give an example of the barriers to entry that you mentioned?

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#374

Post by bananaface »

dmje wrote: post #303

Asking a rhetorical and irritating question - but one which web nerds need to be much better at answering: why, exactly does it matter? Don't get me wrong, I'm totally uncomfortable with a monopoly of this scale; I'm a Firefox user, a Pihole user, a non-FB user. But when people (non nerds) ask me why, it's hard to answer. They're all happy enough: Chrome is fast, AMP is faster, they get to find out the stuff they wan…

For non-techies?

"Once they have wiped out all competition, they can start charging you."

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#375

Post by kevincox »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #371
kevincox wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a weird point when arguing against a closed platform. You are saying that it is hard to report misinformation. If we were using a distributed platform it would be impossible. So in this aspect centralized platforms are superior even if they are closed and not great in an absolute degree.

> If we were using a distributed platform it would be impossible. Distributed platforms don't prevent moderation; they let you choose your moderator (including no moderator at all).

We could also use a distributed moderator on centralized platforms (in the browser at least, apps are harder) but there seems to be very little interest in doing this.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#376

Post by macspoofing »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103

A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…

>but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying.

That's interesting that you do. I can't see it because I just don't go on Facebook. And it isn't a moral stance - I have an account, and occasionally I will respond to a relative or a friend. It's just such a small part of my life that I just don't see the danger you do.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#377

Post by Drakim »

satyrnein wrote: post #356
zanny wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having any infrastructure controlled by a publicly traded corporation has enormous historical precedent to lead to the dissolution of that infrastructure for shareholder profit. Once Google feels comfortable with doing so not allowing arbitrary routing in Chrome will be on the table to control what websites people visit. The only things stopping that is a feeble threat of state intervention or the threat of competiti…

Even if Google takes Chrome proprietary in the future, Microsoft and others can continue on their forks. That's the beauty of open source in this case. As for SPDY, standards bodies like to "pave the cowpaths" so they codify existing implementations. Apple and Mozilla supported SPDY, it eventually became http/2 as you say, and then everyone dropped support for SPDY. This sounds like everything worked as intended.

> Even if Google takes Chrome proprietary in the future, Microsoft and others can continue on their forks. That's the beauty of open source in this case.

It won't help much if a huge part of Chrome's proprietary new future involves running on proprietary content as well. Just wait until Chrome has some special non-HTTP integration with "lightning fast AMP pages" that other browsers can't serve, or serves a lot slower.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#378

Post by grumbel »

I think the biggest failure of the open web is simply the lack of a "Publish" function. You can consume on the open web just fine, but for publishing you need to own a server, not just a client. That in turn gave growth to Youtube, Facebook and Co., as they allowed people to publish content with just a web client.

Search and payment are important as well, but only really become relevant when the content is on the web.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#379

Post by sukilot »

grumbel wrote: post #378

I think the biggest failure of the open web is simply the lack of a "Publish" function. You can consume on the open web just fine, but for publishing you need to own a server, not just a client. That in turn gave growth to Youtube, Facebook and Co., as they allowed people to publish content with just a web client. Search and payment are important as well, but only really become relevant when the content is on the web…

Does NAT and Dynamic DNS count as a server?

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#380

Post by pjmlp »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #364
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103

A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…

>but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS Replace'Facebook' with 'WhatsApp', outside U.S. especially for developing economies, your…

At least in Africa it is quite overwhelming, the whole economy is kind of driven by WhatsApp, at least on the countries I used to visit before we got into the current situation.
Post reply on HN