Use anything BUT Chrome or Edge.
I've tried them all but nothing so far beats the UX of Chrome.
Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
61–70 of 261 posts
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#62I too am surprised anyone uses Chrome, but I will admit to feeling similarly surprised by how many people use Brave. The company seems so sketchy to me, and I wonder why people who presumably care about web standards are so willing to use Chromium-based anything too.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to Firefox when Chrome started messing with the ad blockers. Haven't really had any issues. I prefer developer tools on Chrome but I rarely need to use them anyway.
The trouble is that Mozilla has admitted they can't survive without Google's revenue. You are basically using Google by proxy unless you use a truly independent browser engine of they get blocked by Cloudflare for not having enough fingerprinting tech.
(Ungoogled) Chromium and Firefox are both projects that are open source and readily available. The code is sitting there ready for you to compile. More users = more donations. You can be the change you wanna see.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#64Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem. It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them. I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it! I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.
How will it stop ads if it rewards them with money?
Because it could eventually be detected as click-fraud, and ad networks hate paying out for click-fraud.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, why Brave though? There's Safari, Chromium, LibreWolf, Ladybird, and plenty of others.
Brave is has pre-configured as block that works on everything, also a polished sync experience.
Vivaldi's sync experience is nice as well. Top notch customization too.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#66Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem. It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them. I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it! I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.
These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#67I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.
I use Safari personally. It’s good.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some things only work in Chrome. It's a fact. It's terrible. We're the frogs being boiled, over the last decade. People sounded the alarms, but they were looked at like they had tin foil on their heads. Now, it's clear they were right. I'm speaking generally, of course. I use Firefox for all my personal stuff, except for those situations where it doesn't work.
>> Because some things only work in Chrome. What things? Looks like an urban myth.
A lot of IT now curates the extensions for the browsers and doesn't allow extensions not on the whitelist and then they basically just only do that work on Chrome and disable Firefox. It's kinda self defeating in the long run imo but that's the problem in the industry.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#69I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.
I'm just surprised people use Chrome at all. Google has proven over and over they can't be trusted and will exploit you every chance they get.
95% of people who use Chrome have no clue what browser they are using.
They got Chrome when it was bundled with every single installer ever for about a decade (which was so prolific and scummy that Microsoft had to make the "default app" picker system more defensive, because Chrome was abusing it more than microsoft apps were).
When you installed Java, you also got Chrome set as your default browser with no interaction.
Or they one click downloaded it from Google.com because of a giant banner saying "You gotta download chrome"
It's insane to me how rarely people on HN seem to actually know the history of this. Everyone who worked in tech support in the 2010s experienced this.
It was an identical strategy that most spyware and adware used at the time.
Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
#70What we learn: we can not trust Google.
You're just now learning this? There are whole books about it (check out "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Shoshana Zuboff)