this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
641 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

84823 readers
4436 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Google Chrome will limit ad blockers starting June 2024::The "Manifest V3" rollout is back after letting tensions cool for a year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (14 children)

Everything Google does is evil. How are people still using anything they make—or control the repo for (chromium, android)

[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They make fantastic services that are far more functional than their oss competitors and it's far far less effort than hosting and dealing with that bullshit.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Cannot disagree more. I’ve found Google services to be terrible in comparison to their competitors. Don’t get me started on privacy. Ironically, you’re saying they’re better in the same article that says they’re removing adblockers. Which is clearly not better.

[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Most folks disagree. You are in the minority.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I doubt most folks disagree, but on that note: everything the majority agrees on is factual and the correct method—right?

[–] slipperydippery@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That seems slightly hyperbolic

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago
[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It didn't start that way, it wasn't until they had dominance in multiple areas that they started fucking their customers, but the difference here is that it's stupid easy to change to Firefox, Safari, or gasp Edge.

[–] wazzupdog@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Edge is chromium. And safari is still apple only. So you're last sentence is wrong, but it is indeed super easy to switch to Firefox, or another non-chromium based browser.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Chromium isn't as bad as Chrome, Google actively tries to get you to use Chrome by blocking some features in Chromium (like account syncing).

[–] wazzupdog@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That's like equating evil and evil, both are still Google, both are gonna have mv2 removed (eventually) making web filtering a nightmare. I have all kinds of add-ons that prohibit any scripts from running on a website without my explicit authorization. Mv3 will break that level of security. Chromium=chrome both owned and maintained by Google.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are aware that Chromium is an open source project and isn't owned by anyone, right? Google created the engine/framework and are the biggest contributors to it, but that's akin to saying "Red Hat (or Linus himself) owns Linux".

Google has full control over Chrome which is closed source and has their specific tweaks, they don't have full control over Chromium. I could fork the Chromium repo and there is nothing that Google can do to add in any of their tracking because I have a full copy of the source code and can modify it as I see fit.

Chromium is not Chrome. Just like Edge isn't Chrome.

[–] wazzupdog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Forking chromium and stripping out all the google tracking is near impossible(for smaller dev teams). I am aware there are valiant attempts at de-googleing chromium but every one of them that i tried was either still phoning home, or ran like shit, or were so behind on security updates that it was dangerous to use them.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

Money corrupts everything

[–] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  • School/university online classes and messaging/collaboration

  • Business enterprise messaging/collaboration locked to Google services

  • Business enterprise sites locked to Chromium based browsers

  • Government sites locked to Chromium based browsers

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Remember when government websites only worked on IE6, well into the late 2000s? I even remember Hillary Clinton proposing that government employees only be allowed to use Internet Explorer when she was a senator.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Anyone advocating for IE in the early 2000s was because the web sucked back then and IE could run ActiveX. Granted, thinking back, giving a web app direct hardware access did lead to a lot of security issues. However, and theoretically, if the software is clean (like internal government software should be), it was pretty powerful.

Additionally, I challenge your Clinton remark, and ask you provide a source.

As of my last update in April 2023, there was no record or credible report of Hillary Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, advocating for Internet Explorer to be the only web browser used in government settings. Hillary Clinton's tenure in government, both as a Senator and as Secretary of State, did involve discussions and decisions about technology use in government. However, these discussions were typically centered around issues of security, information management, and diplomatic communication rather than endorsing specific software products like web browsers. In the public domain, there was no evidence to suggest that she made any statements or policy decisions specifically favoring Internet Explorer over other web browsers for government use.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I misremembered, it was when she was secretary of state:

https://www.theregister.com/2009/07/13/firefox_and_us_state_department/

I don't know what your quote is from, is it chatgpt?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

She never said it. She said,

Clinton responded with bewilderment. "Well, apparently, there’s a lot of support for this suggestion. I don’t know the answer. Pat, do you know the answer?" she said, turning to under Secretary Pat Kennedy.

Clearly pushing the issue to the other guy, because it’s not her fucking job.

Fuck Hillary, but get your facts right or go back to Truth Social where you came from.

[–] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Not forever - maybe - but until then, government employees trying to log onto government services like iFTDTL or NSIPS or half a dozen other sites, as well as students logging into their university email or corporate employees logging into enterprise networks are stuck on Google apps or Google-adjacent like Edge.

load more comments (10 replies)