371–380 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But my point is that you do have plenty options in the industry! For sure if you're in charge of something like this you can have a pretty decent job elsewhere. You sound as if those people have nowhere else to continue their careers... Am I wrong?
Yeah, you're kind of a little wrong. Sure, there are options. They don't pay like FAANG, like order of magnitude difference.
I think they are signing the end of chrome dominance. People are going to flee to Firefox.
That won't happen. "Normies" don't care. At all. They just want the fastest thing and are happy to watch ads popping up all 5 minutes all day.
Ad blocking is at least as big a deal as speed in terms of browsing comfort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers Forgive my stupidity, but isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this api? Currently, websites can already do user agent sniffing, or hide their content behind a login wall; but we are not complaining that this is the end of the web. Or…
> isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this? How many web sites still serve you http:// instead of https:// ? The transition was (is) entirely voluntary. Transition happened more slowly until browsers made the lack of https:// look scary. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/01/20/communicating-t...
People get mad at Google for implementing something Apple already implemented up to a point, that the economic driving force behind the free internet is asking for. It's a shit idea but honestly Google isn't even the bad guy here. Everyone is mad at the theoretical anti-adblock usage of theoretical websites. Be mad at those websites instead! Almost every free service out there runs on ads. If you pay your subscriptio…
> It's a shit idea but honestly Google isn't even the bad guy here. Everyone is mad at the theoretical anti-adblock usage of theoretical websites. Be mad at those websites instead! Absolutely not, Google is the driving force giving them that power, knowing it's very ripe for that sort of abuse. Google is experimenting with detecting adblockers on YouTube. Don't for a moment think that the fact that this can be used t…
They don't need the extra adblock detection, they need to validate that a human is watching the ads that do come up. You, as a user with an adblocker, are not YouTube's customer (unless you're paying for Premium, in which case you don't need standard adblock); their advertisers are.
I don't think adblock is such an immediate concern just yet. If they want to cut down on adblock usage, they can just restrict adblock users to a limited amount of videos per day, or limit them to 480p, or pull all kinds of other stunts. Premium exclusive higher bitrate streams seem to be slowly rolling out, but I suspect that's just the first step.
What Google desperately needs is proving to their real customers that they're not scamming them out of advertiser money. An ad not playing isn't costing them much, but an ad playing in a scraper's virtual browser window is a liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They get paid lots of money.
But surely those folks can walk away and put in their CV that they quit because they were in charge of implementing one of the worst ideas the history of internet has seen so far. Wouldn't you hire someone that puts that in their resume?
To most employers, that would read as "prone to insubordination", and be an immediate red flag. Because each and every one of them will inevitably ask you to do something at some point that will be fucked up.
It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers. Make browsing the internet possible only on macOS, Windows, Android or iOS (no custom Android distributions, definitely no LineageOS or GrapheneOS or whatever). No competi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those normal activities like banking is a corporate service and I'm happy with it's regulation and it makes sense to be regulated. Buying stuff is on a spectrum and I think a consumer should be able to chose a tightly regulated system for exchanging currency. Most everything else should be free to choose.
E.g. McDonald's android app, at this moment. It doesn't launch on devices which fail Safety Net checks, i.e. modified firmware
Financial transactions could become so streamlined that a "commerce fob" is likely to emerge. That would be a credit card with a screen and buttons.
Think about how streamlined all these tasks have become. Putting those in a single ROM that has a screen and is tied into some legitimate network will emerge.
It is only out of convenience that these services are currently tied to a "phone".
A good and measured article marred only by a silly, clickbait title. Unless there is a plan to allow attesters that are independent bodies then this is absolutely a threat to the open internet, or what's left of it. The biggest dead canary for me is the lack of calling this out explicitly by Google or Apple. We're left to assume that Google is hand-wavingly saying "don't worry we can take care of that" when the priva…
- Content sites implement Web Integrity API to block bots
- But they still allow Google crawlers, because Google is their source of traffic
- Google competitors are locked out
How do attesters solve this problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, I use Firefox everywhere. But we must not forget the following: In 2011 Mozilla income was 85% derrived from Google, through the primary search engine deal. Around a billion was paid over three years as part of this deal at some point. Appearantly there was bidding by Microsoft for making Bing the default, which pushed up the pricing. So every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, sinc…
Mozilla should really double down on Mozilla VPN. Judging by all the NordVPN ads on every major youtuber's video, the profit margins must be astronomical (or their business model must be suspicious). It should provide a good income stream for Mozilla. The entire space is shady and filled with dubious actors. It is just begging to be disrupted by a trustworthy organization. I can't think of a single candidate other th…
I would love to have a Mozilla hosted email and calendar service from them, for example. I don't understand why they aren't branching out into more common web citizen needed services.
Do you know what puzzles me most? How can software engineers work on something like this? Don't those paid engineers or involved ones have the balls or dignity to walk away? I'm just wondering how they would feel about this (if they feel anything at all). I mean, if I'd be in such a position and asked to push something like this I'd have walked away on the spot, no matter what you offer me. No one at Google is standi…
Ok but have you considered that making people watch ads to use an optional service is not a war crime