801–810 of 876 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search for "american inventors" if you want to have some laughs.
wtf whyy EDIT: To clarify, why is that list so bad?
> If you’re in basic browsing mode, your data is still stored locally. The problem is that you no longer get to decide which mode you’re in.
But yes you do! Don't use gmail and you will remain in basic mode.
I get the author's point, but he seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. If you're using gmail, Google already owns a very very significant part of your personal data, enough that you should be worried about it. If you don't trust Google to treat your cookies and other web-data with proper controls, then you shouldn't trust Google to manage your email either.
So from a principled perspective, yeah it's a step backwards for sure. But from a practical perspective, it isn't nearly as substantial.
I for one did find this new misfeature useful -- because Chrome signin and sync are buggy as hell. I get logged out all the time for no apparent reason. Loading gmail (usually without a new signin) re-signs me into Chrome now.
I am not going to switch browsers based on this slide in user privacy from Google. They already suck wrt user privacy and this isn't that significant for me (as a gmail user). Chrome is still much better than FF for me. And come on, FF has had its own privacy flubs as well. didn't they force pocket on everyone? If you switch browsers everytime one of the vendors makes a misstep, there are going to be no more browsers to choose from, save elinks.
Still, here's hoping someone writes an extension or figures out how to block sign-in at a network level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you think the coverage of him is bad now He could solve that problem by simply ceasing to say and do dumb things. I'm not convinced the media is out to get him, he just shoots himself in the foot about 20 times / day. I wish the news were focused more on policy than politics (though not sure that would help him), but people like drama and news orgs like money.
> he just shoots himself in the foot about 20 times / day as much as I dislike trump, i do think some of the negative media coverage of him is over the top, and does its part in destroying credibility of real issues. my own gut would be on those '20 times/day' things, probably 5-10 of them are overblown or taken out of context (the 'fist bump' on 9/11 was overblown, imo, when you look at the complete footage and cont…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search for "gun rights" in Google, and the Wikipedia feature box on the top-right of the results page is the Gun Control article. I've noticed the straight search results making a marked decline in quality over the past few months. If one of the keywords within your search is anything remotely profitable, it will drown out all other terms. Then the search results ended after ~4 pages. Definitely changed from the Goog…
Search for "gun rights" in Google, and the Wikipedia feature box on the top-right of the results page is the Gun Control article. It is known that Google employees have the capability to skew search results politically, just not whether they do it in specific circumstances (of course it would be robustly denied) https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1M1041 (For those that say “good” remember that tomorrow…
That would be important if it were true. Can you back it up?
>The extreme version holds that I ought to be using lynx+Tor and DJB’s custom search engine, and if I’m not I pretty much deserve what’s coming to me. What is this "DJB’s custom search engine" ? I fail to find it with both DuckDuckGo or google..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said Google staff had, and I didn't say they did that in this video. But then to be fair, I don't have any hard evidence for this. EDIT: As it turns out, sources for this are pretty easy to come across online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-s...
This is the main claim: "Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented." To me, that is not "subverting democracy." It is, however, taking an active political stance.
The WSJ is unabashedly an outlet for conservative and GOP talking points. That is clear on its opinion page, and I know that somehow people trust its news pages, but the same editors control the rest of the publication, as does the owner of the WSJ and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. I wouldn't trust their summary of something relating to a conservative talking point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't that somewhat related to the trademark dispute? The domain gmail.com became unavailable in Germany due to trademark disputes [...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail#Germany
If the Germany trademark issue was relevant to the moving from gmail.com to google.com/whatever is the case, why were we all allowed to have @gmail.com email addresses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP was what did it for me.
When Gmail came out, I said to people "as long as it stays on gmail.com then they can't use email scraping with your search history. No privacy issues." (or minmal ones) Within a few months of Gmail going public it changed from gmail.com to gmail.google.com or google.com/gmail or some such thing, and I knew instantly they had bamboozled everyone. That was years ago, the rest has been the expected trend.
To think we were so naïve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he just shoots himself in the foot about 20 times / day as much as I dislike trump, i do think some of the negative media coverage of him is over the top, and does its part in destroying credibility of real issues. my own gut would be on those '20 times/day' things, probably 5-10 of them are overblown or taken out of context (the 'fist bump' on 9/11 was overblown, imo, when you look at the complete footage and cont…
I agree that it's over the top (mostly thinking CNN here) only due to the fact that it seems to be all they ever report on anymore. Some are overblown, it's true, but enough legitimate issues come up daily to fill the news cycle with headlines like "you won't believe what Trump did next!"
agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is.
there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than trivial - it gives cover and legitimacy to the folks who are on the fence about 'fake news' charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it was. The concept of gun rights cannot exist without the concept of gun control, it's quite literally the same theme. Gun control is what defines which gun rights people have.
Search "Free speech" and get "Censorship" would be your stance, then.