FLoC Away from Chrome(floc-away-from-chrome.com)
floc-away-from-chrome.com
FLoC Away from Chrome
https://www.floc-away-from-chrome.com/
154 comments
I didn't flip because of features, everything was working just fine for me. I flipped beacuse Chrome, at the time, was incredibly faster and snappier than Firefox. And it remained like that for a long time. I bet a ton of users switched for the same reason.
Exactly this. Chrome was fast, Firefox wasn't. It still isn't: https://arewefastyet.com/mac/benchmarks/overview?numDays=60
I'm glad there are alternatives to Chrome though.
I'm glad there are alternatives to Chrome though.
Wait don't the graph show that Firefox is mostly faster. Lower on the graph means better.
Hmm, in many of the benchmarks there, it is even performing better than Chrome and the like. What makes you say, that it still is not fast? Which one of the benchmark results do you assign more importance than the others and why?
On my Linux laptop I am running Chromium. Do you know if it is going to have this feature or is it just in Chrome.
I think websites on Chromium look better than on Firefox and that's important for me.
But if that feature is going to be in Chromium too, maybe I'll look how to remove that feature, but I'll have to learn how to compile the whole thing. I tried couple of times but always got stuck somewhere.
Yes, it will be in Chromium as well. It's meant to be a complete replacement for tracking cookies after all. It remains to be seen how much of it you will be able to turn off in the browser settings, as opting out is not implemented yet IIRC.
If it turns out you cannot completely disable it, and you still want to continue using a Chromium-based browser without FLoC, you will have to use a fork. Vivaldi and Brave have already announced they will remove it, and I'm sure Ungoogled Chromium will do the same.
If it turns out you cannot completely disable it, and you still want to continue using a Chromium-based browser without FLoC, you will have to use a fork. Vivaldi and Brave have already announced they will remove it, and I'm sure Ungoogled Chromium will do the same.
How much of Chrome’s speed advantage (if it even exists any more) comes from hogging RAM to speed things up at the expense of everything else on the system? Truly a tragedy of the commons, compounded by Electron apps like Slack that I unfortunately have to run as a corporate mandate.
Also, doesn't firefox still contain things like pocket.io and other 3rd party data integrations?
I don't know the current situation but I stopped considering Firefox an alternative or mozilla more trust worthy than Google at that moment.
There are still alternatives but that's more things like the default gnome webbrowser.
At heart Firefox's financing model is as broken as Google's. Yet all the real alternatives aren't investing in the actual development.
Give me a competitive browser and render engine with a patreon button or something similar as only business model and I'll switch. At the end of the day that sort of thing needs financing and Mozilla's strategies aren't at heart different. And I don't know current leadership but I haven't heard the all clear yet. Is firefox currently more privacy conscious? People just assume Firefox is a clean browser but last I checked those assumptions were still marketing and not reality.
I don't know the current situation but I stopped considering Firefox an alternative or mozilla more trust worthy than Google at that moment.
There are still alternatives but that's more things like the default gnome webbrowser.
At heart Firefox's financing model is as broken as Google's. Yet all the real alternatives aren't investing in the actual development.
Give me a competitive browser and render engine with a patreon button or something similar as only business model and I'll switch. At the end of the day that sort of thing needs financing and Mozilla's strategies aren't at heart different. And I don't know current leadership but I haven't heard the all clear yet. Is firefox currently more privacy conscious? People just assume Firefox is a clean browser but last I checked those assumptions were still marketing and not reality.
It's getpocket.com, actually. The io one is just a domain for sale.
You know, I was furious about the pocket integration and partnership when it first happened almost six years ago. I didn't like the idea of third-party integrations. I was also mad that they didn't bow to pressure from the community and remove the integration...
But now, I kind of respect Mozilla for keeping it despite the community pressure. They were making money with the partnership, and money from sources OTHER than Google is a good thing.
After two years of this, Mozilla realized that Pocket was making so much money on paid memberships that it was smarter to use some of their war-chest to buy Pocket outright.
That's right, Pocket is owned by Mozilla now and has been for 4 years. [1]
Now it's an important part of their financials. In their Auditors report covering all of 2019 [2], they say "Mozilla’s subscription revenues primarily consist of revenue from subscriptions to a service known as Pocket Premium". The subscription revenue for 2019 was over 14 million, triple what it was in 2018.
This makes me more comfortable because I don't mind, in theory, subscribing to services that actually fund Mozilla.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po... [2] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2019/mozilla-fdn-201...
You know, I was furious about the pocket integration and partnership when it first happened almost six years ago. I didn't like the idea of third-party integrations. I was also mad that they didn't bow to pressure from the community and remove the integration...
But now, I kind of respect Mozilla for keeping it despite the community pressure. They were making money with the partnership, and money from sources OTHER than Google is a good thing.
After two years of this, Mozilla realized that Pocket was making so much money on paid memberships that it was smarter to use some of their war-chest to buy Pocket outright.
That's right, Pocket is owned by Mozilla now and has been for 4 years. [1]
Now it's an important part of their financials. In their Auditors report covering all of 2019 [2], they say "Mozilla’s subscription revenues primarily consist of revenue from subscriptions to a service known as Pocket Premium". The subscription revenue for 2019 was over 14 million, triple what it was in 2018.
This makes me more comfortable because I don't mind, in theory, subscribing to services that actually fund Mozilla.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po... [2] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2019/mozilla-fdn-201...
Yeah thanks for mentioning that. The pocket integration would come across better if they put it under the mozilla domain name. I installed Firefox for the first time in a while about a month ago. I plugged it into a proxy to see what it does. When I saw all the Pocket telemetry I was afraid they had gone the Dell "bundling" route, until I looked it up and discovered it was owned by Mozilla.
A competitive browser and render engine with a patreon button as a business model? Sounds like you're staying with Chrome forever then.
Mozilla aren't more holy than the pope, but of course they are more trustworthy and privacy oriented than Chrome. You can see it basically everywhere: containers, cookie management, uBlock support etc. They're not perfect, but they are creating a browser, while Chrome is becoming essentially an ad delivery tool (surprise, surprise, an ad company creating an ad delivery tool).
Mozilla aren't more holy than the pope, but of course they are more trustworthy and privacy oriented than Chrome. You can see it basically everywhere: containers, cookie management, uBlock support etc. They're not perfect, but they are creating a browser, while Chrome is becoming essentially an ad delivery tool (surprise, surprise, an ad company creating an ad delivery tool).
Agree. Every time I see anyone recommend Firefox as a privacy browser I just assume they are giving this advice to their grandma or sth. Firefox is not whistle clean as a privacy browser. It has location tracking by default and some telemetry that can't be switched off even with flags.
Why anyone who considers themselves privacy conscious would deliberately ignore such red flags in favour of Moz coolaid is beyond me.
Though this doesn't mean I have no love for Firefox. It is a great browser when stripped down of all the bloat. Currently use Librewolf as the FF alternative and this gives me my peace.
Why anyone who considers themselves privacy conscious would deliberately ignore such red flags in favour of Moz coolaid is beyond me.
Though this doesn't mean I have no love for Firefox. It is a great browser when stripped down of all the bloat. Currently use Librewolf as the FF alternative and this gives me my peace.
Same. I actually resisted switching to Chrome for a while because I didn't want to lose functionality that I had accustomed to in Firefox which was lacking in Chrome back then, (mostly in the form of extensions like Firebug) but the difference in speed and resource usage between the two had become undeniably apparent at some point and that's when I decided to switch and learn to live without the features that I'd leave behind.
This particular incidence doesn't in any way disprove the argument that just a few flashy features is sometimes what it takes to get a lot of users to flip to a new -and in some cases, inferior- product though. As software history repeatedly acknowledges, that is fundamentally true.
This particular incidence doesn't in any way disprove the argument that just a few flashy features is sometimes what it takes to get a lot of users to flip to a new -and in some cases, inferior- product though. As software history repeatedly acknowledges, that is fundamentally true.
I flipped long ago because of a stupid stubborn ui design decision chrome stuck with. In hindsight, if chrome listened to my (user) needs I would probably still be using it. Assuming the privacy bug hadn't caught up with me that is. (Who am I kidding? No one sane should be using chrome as a personal browser in 2021)
The biggest crime chrome made was to add a flag that enabled users to use a bottom address bar then completely remove it months later.
This felony was enough to make me export all my passwords and move them to another Chromium-based browser that had the single feature I had longed for. Funny enough it also opened up my eyes to bitwarden and haveibeenpwned. Maybe all this was sort of due.
I occasionally use vanilla Firefox for testing out ads and other links.
The biggest crime chrome made was to add a flag that enabled users to use a bottom address bar then completely remove it months later.
This felony was enough to make me export all my passwords and move them to another Chromium-based browser that had the single feature I had longed for. Funny enough it also opened up my eyes to bitwarden and haveibeenpwned. Maybe all this was sort of due.
I occasionally use vanilla Firefox for testing out ads and other links.
Not only was Chrome much faster, it also didn't leak memory (which was my biggest gripe with FF at that time).
> Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users.
"Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills.
First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that.
So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
"Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills.
First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that.
So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
> So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
These millions sure are a juicy carrot. Question is, were there other revenue model options, before taking on such a huge conflict of interest? One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition.
These millions sure are a juicy carrot. Question is, were there other revenue model options, before taking on such a huge conflict of interest? One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition.
> One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition.
I don't understand this attitude. Is there any better search engine than Google today? No. If Firefox hardcoded Bing to the homepage, or some other such "principled stance", people would completely stop using them.
Principled stances work great for TV pundits and politicians, and in both cases because they don't care if they lie to you.
In the real world we deal with nuance and practical situations. Mozilla doesn't have to HATE or DESPISE or BAN Google, or whatever other verb implies strong enough principled stance. They can recognize them as the lead search engine, and do their part when they're in position to.
It seems in the public debate we want to reduce every situation to a pro-wrestling match.
I don't understand this attitude. Is there any better search engine than Google today? No. If Firefox hardcoded Bing to the homepage, or some other such "principled stance", people would completely stop using them.
Principled stances work great for TV pundits and politicians, and in both cases because they don't care if they lie to you.
In the real world we deal with nuance and practical situations. Mozilla doesn't have to HATE or DESPISE or BAN Google, or whatever other verb implies strong enough principled stance. They can recognize them as the lead search engine, and do their part when they're in position to.
It seems in the public debate we want to reduce every situation to a pro-wrestling match.
> Is there any better search engine than Google today?
From time to time, Bing and DDG are better at searching web than Google. Not always, but the number of times I started reaching for an alternative search engine has increased.
From time to time, Bing and DDG are better at searching web than Google. Not always, but the number of times I started reaching for an alternative search engine has increased.
> Mozilla doesn't have to HATE or DESPISE or BAN Google, or whatever other verb implies strong enough principled stance.
Hate and despise show no principle, ban is hard. How about independent, not co-opted?
Hate and despise show no principle, ban is hard. How about independent, not co-opted?
> "Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills.
Do you think companies have to be unethical to feed their families or pay bills?
Do you think companies have to be unethical to feed their families or pay bills?
I think we need to tone down our understanding of "unethical" to something reasonable. There's nothing unethical about Firefox having a Google homepage.
If you start digging too deep, it's unethical we get up from bed in the morning at all.
The problem is it's become a cultural phenomenon to hate big corporations, as a way to offset our guilt for using their products and services. Ask anyone and they'll tell you how much they hate unethical Big Oil and they may even tell you so while using oil-produced electrical power or driving a gas-powered car.
If enough people really cared, they'd change their homepage from Google to something else. They don't. Ergo I guess we're all unethical. Or maybe we need to stop lying to ourselves and realize the world is shades of gray, not black and white.
If you start digging too deep, it's unethical we get up from bed in the morning at all.
The problem is it's become a cultural phenomenon to hate big corporations, as a way to offset our guilt for using their products and services. Ask anyone and they'll tell you how much they hate unethical Big Oil and they may even tell you so while using oil-produced electrical power or driving a gas-powered car.
If enough people really cared, they'd change their homepage from Google to something else. They don't. Ergo I guess we're all unethical. Or maybe we need to stop lying to ourselves and realize the world is shades of gray, not black and white.
Isn’t the newer edge based on chrome’s rendering engine anyway? What’s stopping google from doing what they did with Android: remove more and more and more of the parts included with open source Android and move them into closed source Android to the point where vanilla open source Android has much lower utility?
The answer is nothing, but then again there's very little stopping your neighbour physically from murdering you in your sleep too. Perhaps this is not something to worry about, or perhaps it is! The way to figure out whether or not that is the case is to reason a little deeper than "well it's possible", which is true for far too many things to be useful.
> What’s stopping google from doing what they did with Android: remove more and more and more of the parts included with open source Android and move them into closed source Android to the point where vanilla open source Android has much lower utility?
This is somewhat explored territory. KHTML, Webkit, Blink etc. have resulted in a lot of the "important bits" being in WebkitCore.
This is somewhat explored territory. KHTML, Webkit, Blink etc. have resulted in a lot of the "important bits" being in WebkitCore.
>What’s stopping google from doing what they did with Android: remove more and more and more of the parts included with open source Android and move them into closed source Android to the point where vanilla open source Android has much lower utility?
Microsoft has more than enough resources and engineers to continue to support or even fork Blink even if Google went full closed source (just like Google did back in the day with webkit).
I wouldn't trust Microsoft to be better than Google on privacy TBH. In fact I feel that given the opportunity Microsoft has prooven time and time again they would be worse, but they aren't as successfull with Bing so they don't have the opportunity.
Microsoft has more than enough resources and engineers to continue to support or even fork Blink even if Google went full closed source (just like Google did back in the day with webkit).
I wouldn't trust Microsoft to be better than Google on privacy TBH. In fact I feel that given the opportunity Microsoft has prooven time and time again they would be worse, but they aren't as successfull with Bing so they don't have the opportunity.
Google can’t go closed source with WebKit because it is LGPL software not originally written by Google.
WebKit came from the KDE project via Apple to Google.
WebKit came from the KDE project via Apple to Google.
Yes. the latest edge is a chromium fork, and there is bidirectional development/patches being submitted by MS.
I've heard anecdotally that much of MS' effort has been in de-googling chrome, but given MS history, it is probably being replaced with their own telemetry, with the added bonus of integrating their telemetry on the OS level as well.
It already happened with native mobile apps.
Thanks to desire to kill Flash, and the broken support for hardware accelerated canvas and WebGL, given that as game studio you have zero control over hardware support on customer's browser, the flourishing Flash indie scene has moved into Unreal, Unity and Godot targeting native instead.
Even if WebGPU and WebAssembly ever fix what happened during the last decade, they are years away to actually replicate the capabilities Flash offered to gamedevs in 2011.
Thanks to desire to kill Flash, and the broken support for hardware accelerated canvas and WebGL, given that as game studio you have zero control over hardware support on customer's browser, the flourishing Flash indie scene has moved into Unreal, Unity and Godot targeting native instead.
Even if WebGPU and WebAssembly ever fix what happened during the last decade, they are years away to actually replicate the capabilities Flash offered to gamedevs in 2011.
"Apple has decided to make Internet Explorer its default browser on the Macintosh (booing, clearly audible “Nos”). Since we believe in choice (laughter), since we believe in choice we’re going to be shipping other Internet browsers as well on the Macintosh and the user can of course change their default should they choose to (cheering), but uh, we believe that Internet Explorer is a really good browser (jeering) and we think it’s going to make a fine default browser" - Steve Jobs, obvs
Since we believe in choice ... the Google homepage "scum accusation" is a little harsh.
I'm very happy Mozilla / FF are still in the game.
Since we believe in choice ... the Google homepage "scum accusation" is a little harsh.
I'm very happy Mozilla / FF are still in the game.
> Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either.
Mozilla, you're like... 50/50 on this. You do awesome things like per-site containers and default off for 3rd party cookies, and then you do weird things like the Mr. Robot alternate reality game.
Like... it kills me, because I'm pretty sure you were just trying to be fun and delight your users. And I hate that the web is at the point where nobody trusts anyone. (JoCo? If you're reading this, "Solid State" was ahead of it's time. My favorite album.)
But we need you, HARD.
Mozilla, you're like... 50/50 on this. You do awesome things like per-site containers and default off for 3rd party cookies, and then you do weird things like the Mr. Robot alternate reality game.
Like... it kills me, because I'm pretty sure you were just trying to be fun and delight your users. And I hate that the web is at the point where nobody trusts anyone. (JoCo? If you're reading this, "Solid State" was ahead of it's time. My favorite album.)
But we need you, HARD.
False equivalence
Don't use Chrome and don't use other browser based on Chromium either. As long as Google's engine has 85%+ market share, they can just unilaterally do whatever they want to the web.
Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
I do use Firefox and have been since its used to named 'Netscape'... Everyone in my family uses Firefox on all their devices but that's just a microscopic fraction.
Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting).
With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well.
Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting).
With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well.
Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
Ditto. Firefox takes security and privacy more seriously as well. Google's business model is selling online advertising which by nature requires data collection and tracking. I've been using Firefox as main browser and for web development for years and never thought about going back to Chrome.
I'm not entirely sure whether it is more sustainable to maintain a separate rendering engine than to gradually build up Chromium expertise outside of Google.
With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
Apparently Vivaldi (based on Chromium) made it's decision (for the time being) https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
you can build all the expertise you want, it will not achieve much control or influence over what gets put into Chrome and therefore what power Google has to influence or just ignore web standards. The real power comes from voting with your feet and using a different browser altogether.
Building Chromium expertise could enable Chromium alternatives such as Vivaldi, Edge or Brave to selectively remove or override features that only benefit Google.
I'm wondering whether this is ultimately a more effective strategy if the goal is independence from Google's business model while offering a performant browser that works on all websites.
Mozilla has to put tremendous resources into implementing browser features that are uncontroversial and unrelated to Google's business model. And those resources are paid for by Google.
That said, there are certainly good arguments in favour of having more than one rendering engine. After all, privacy controversies are not the only reason why competition is healthy.
I'm wondering whether this is ultimately a more effective strategy if the goal is independence from Google's business model while offering a performant browser that works on all websites.
Mozilla has to put tremendous resources into implementing browser features that are uncontroversial and unrelated to Google's business model. And those resources are paid for by Google.
That said, there are certainly good arguments in favour of having more than one rendering engine. After all, privacy controversies are not the only reason why competition is healthy.
We already know the answer. Did those so called browsers, but actually Chrome mods, made independent decisions about AMP? Something they can't just change easily. The answer is no. And the same answer will be when Google will make Floc permanent and not switchable in Chrome. No need to test anything again.
> Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS.
How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.
I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS.
How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.
This is just a rant and not very helpful for anyone that gets redirected here. I can’t really see anyone that care about their visitors doing this.
Do as the good old times when we showed a banner to IE users below a certain version, and suggest better alternatives.
Do as the good old times when we showed a banner to IE users below a certain version, and suggest better alternatives.
Indeed: it's incredibly obnoxious and will serve only to irritate most website visitors. It won't turn people against Chrome: it'll turn them against website owners. Seems more focussed on getting a reaction than getting an outcome. Very counterproductive.
The webpage itself literally says:
"Redirecting people here is probably a dumb idea."
"Redirecting people here is probably a dumb idea."
Then why do it? What's the point of this site? You'd have to read that far to see that, whereas my reaction was more along the lines of, "WTF? Oh, for pity's sake... <<clicks back or closes tab>>".
I would imagine that the point of the site is to draw attention and get people who actually care about this stuff to discuss it, and figure out some more appropriate solutions.
> Stop using Google Chrome, and install another browser
As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience."
Does Chrome have the branding to sustain it? Would the websites take the traffic hit? If trends continue as they have the last 5+ years, it may be a test worth running.
As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience."
Does Chrome have the branding to sustain it? Would the websites take the traffic hit? If trends continue as they have the last 5+ years, it may be a test worth running.
Well, when I saw sites that didn't work properly on Chrome because they were tailored to IE/Edge, or went out to of their way to inconvenience me about it, I just stopped browsing them. Or disabled all scripts and blocked cookies, or wrote a filter on uBlock.
I don't think sites want to risk losing users because of the the browser they use. Competition is brutal out there.
I don't think sites want to risk losing users because of the the browser they use. Competition is brutal out there.
Chrome has around 69% market share right now. I'm guessing sites that have easy alternatives would suffer, but more "essential" sites like Amazon or something might be able to have an impact. Obviously consumers would hate this but if it was coordinated among many top sites, it might have an impact. Assuming people don't make Chrome extensions to remove those ugly popups I guess.
I doubt amazon has anything to gain by focusing the conversation on privacy. Or choice, for that matter.
Yes, I hope the monoliths start fighting and break apart in the scuffle. Amazon sales fall from lack of support of a popular browser, Chrome usage falters because people want to use Amazon, and just a smidge of their respective moat's get filled in such that other companies can have some of the pie back.
That's not a possibility. Amazon would only spite another monolith if it had more to gain than lose.
What you're saying is that the only entities large enough to break all the things that make the Google market dominance possible, are also large enough that they themselves profit from them immensely.
Nice
>As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience."
I use Chrome for exactly one reason: adding shortcuts to websites as an app. Firefox at one point had (very broken) support for this, but they've since removed it (on desktop, it's still possible on the mobile app).
It is simply untrue that Firefox gives me the best experience. If you're going to block Chrome because of web privacy ideology, then just say that. Don't lie to your visitors. Telling me Chrome "isn't supported" is obvious hogwash. Instead you should tell me that you have blocked it, and why you have blocked it, and maybe then I would consider opening your page in another browser.
Strong arming users with false pretenses is deplorable, no matter which side is doing it.
I use Chrome for exactly one reason: adding shortcuts to websites as an app. Firefox at one point had (very broken) support for this, but they've since removed it (on desktop, it's still possible on the mobile app).
It is simply untrue that Firefox gives me the best experience. If you're going to block Chrome because of web privacy ideology, then just say that. Don't lie to your visitors. Telling me Chrome "isn't supported" is obvious hogwash. Instead you should tell me that you have blocked it, and why you have blocked it, and maybe then I would consider opening your page in another browser.
Strong arming users with false pretenses is deplorable, no matter which side is doing it.
Wait, you are using shortcuts instead of bookmarks or just keeping the tabs opened and that is the reason to use Chrome?
That's one of the most unique reasons for keeping using certain browser I've even seen.
That's one of the most unique reasons for keeping using certain browser I've even seen.
I don't think keeping app shortcuts for SPAs is niche at all. I've seen plenty of people do it.
It is a much better user experience. With things like Gmail or WhatsApp Web I don't want them to be another browser tab, I want to be able to switch to it and control the windows with my window manager. I am never closing these windows, and trying to find them among open browser tabs in different browser windows is not fun.
Browser tabs are a not a good replacement for desktop window management.
It is a much better user experience. With things like Gmail or WhatsApp Web I don't want them to be another browser tab, I want to be able to switch to it and control the windows with my window manager. I am never closing these windows, and trying to find them among open browser tabs in different browser windows is not fun.
Browser tabs are a not a good replacement for desktop window management.
Web developers don't make those decisions. Their customers (internal or external) have the final word on anything like that. I wonder how my customers would look at me if I suggest to place a banner like that on their sites. Maybe I'll ask the question.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think it would work. If bad-faith blocks became common, Chrome could start proactively identifying them and sending user-agent "Mozilla/5.0 (buzz off)".
[deleted]
> Does Chrome has the branding to sustain it?
Every student in America is running a Chromebook. Why do they need branding?
Every student in America is running a Chromebook. Why do they need branding?
Every child in danish public schools, have laptops. Most are Chromebooks. They don't need any branding.
Apple does exactly the same thing https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
And interestingly you have to turn this off separately on every single device. It's not an Apple account thing as you might expect. I had it turned off on my iPhone but Apple was still tracking me on my Mac until I noticed just now. Sneaky.
When you first set up the device, you get a screen that asks you if you want it on or off. It tells you that it's used for targeted advertising. Every time you update your Mac to a major software version you get a window pop up with those questions too (along with stuff about Siri, telemetrics, etc).
That's not the same thing as having it on by default and hiding the setting in a menu somewhere. But that's how your comment reads.
You probably just ignored the questions and closed the window. There's a lot of things you can fault Apple for, but I wouldn't consider that one of them.
That's not the same thing as having it on by default and hiding the setting in a menu somewhere. But that's how your comment reads.
You probably just ignored the questions and closed the window. There's a lot of things you can fault Apple for, but I wouldn't consider that one of them.
What I'm saying is that I thought I had already made that decision by turning it off on my phone. So I didn't pay enough attention to it when it must have come up again at the time I set up my new Mac.
I'm not saying this is particularly egregious. I just find it slightly annoying that they keep trying to make me opt into this after I explicitly opted out. Not a big deal though.
I'm not saying this is particularly egregious. I just find it slightly annoying that they keep trying to make me opt into this after I explicitly opted out. Not a big deal though.
Apple does not have an equivalent to FLoC.
Can you elaborate? The linked page explains how Apple has "segments": behavioral groups, based on your private interactions (and explicit personal information too!), used in order to target ads. What's the difference between this and a FLoC cohort?
Conceptually, they are similar, but based on what I understand the implications are very different based on how data is collected and who it is available to.
Apple ad targeting:
- collected from device info, purchases made from Apple (apps, shows, movies, books, etc.), and app store searches
- used to serve ads in Apple apps (App Store, Stocks, News), so while Apple knows what segment you're in, it's hard to see how that's any worse than what they already know about you (assuming you trust Apple with your info, which I assume you mostly do if you use Apple devices)
Google Floc:
- collected from all of your browsing history in Chrome, not just on Google properties
- your Floc ID is available not just to Google, but to every site you visit because Chrome serves it up. This means any site would have immediate access to your interests and demographics. Say you sign up for a site with your name or other identifying information, now they can link your personal information with your interests and browsing habits. So now you don't only have to trust Google, but you have to trust every entity you interact with on Chrome.
Apple ad targeting:
- collected from device info, purchases made from Apple (apps, shows, movies, books, etc.), and app store searches
- used to serve ads in Apple apps (App Store, Stocks, News), so while Apple knows what segment you're in, it's hard to see how that's any worse than what they already know about you (assuming you trust Apple with your info, which I assume you mostly do if you use Apple devices)
Google Floc:
- collected from all of your browsing history in Chrome, not just on Google properties
- your Floc ID is available not just to Google, but to every site you visit because Chrome serves it up. This means any site would have immediate access to your interests and demographics. Say you sign up for a site with your name or other identifying information, now they can link your personal information with your interests and browsing habits. So now you don't only have to trust Google, but you have to trust every entity you interact with on Chrome.
Apple uses segments for itself, FLoC is a web standard, so third-parties can de-anonymize as a side-effect: https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/100
Frankly the same problem exists in PCM’s, Apple’s proposed solution to allow private tracking from ad clicks: https://github.com/privacycg/private-click-measurement/issue...
However, both of these are solutions to help web developers of third-party sites and ad networks track end users anonymously. All would argue that they’re better than third-party cookies, though in reality, users might want to turn off or opt out of both of these anonymize tracking devices.
Another way of putting it: I don’t mind sharing my data with Apple when Apple says to trust them. I also don’t mind sharing data with Google when Google says to trust them. I do both on a regular basis with iCloud and Google Drive for example.
What I have a problem with is when people try to “solve” third-party cookies in a way that doesn’t increase privacy but simply pretends to.
I’m not against first party telemetry data, I love it as an engineer and I know that bugs found and reported with it can be fixed, thus improving my experience with products.
What I dislike is when advertising companies can sign deals with Google or Facebook and gain access to lots of info about how well their campaigns are working, or when I don’t know when my data is being used, or when companies start messing with DNS so third-parties look like first-party just to increase revenue.
To me it says it all that Google apparently turns off FLoC when inside GDPR zones. Only stronger laws will actually prevent bad behaviour on legitimate rule-abiding services. Only providing less and less means of tracking can we truly start to prevent it technically. Looking for replacements to tracking to support existing business models is doomed to failure as long as people can keep voting, literally and figuratively, for privacy-preserving alternatives and policies.
Frankly the same problem exists in PCM’s, Apple’s proposed solution to allow private tracking from ad clicks: https://github.com/privacycg/private-click-measurement/issue...
However, both of these are solutions to help web developers of third-party sites and ad networks track end users anonymously. All would argue that they’re better than third-party cookies, though in reality, users might want to turn off or opt out of both of these anonymize tracking devices.
Another way of putting it: I don’t mind sharing my data with Apple when Apple says to trust them. I also don’t mind sharing data with Google when Google says to trust them. I do both on a regular basis with iCloud and Google Drive for example.
What I have a problem with is when people try to “solve” third-party cookies in a way that doesn’t increase privacy but simply pretends to.
I’m not against first party telemetry data, I love it as an engineer and I know that bugs found and reported with it can be fixed, thus improving my experience with products.
What I dislike is when advertising companies can sign deals with Google or Facebook and gain access to lots of info about how well their campaigns are working, or when I don’t know when my data is being used, or when companies start messing with DNS so third-parties look like first-party just to increase revenue.
To me it says it all that Google apparently turns off FLoC when inside GDPR zones. Only stronger laws will actually prevent bad behaviour on legitimate rule-abiding services. Only providing less and less means of tracking can we truly start to prevent it technically. Looking for replacements to tracking to support existing business models is doomed to failure as long as people can keep voting, literally and figuratively, for privacy-preserving alternatives and policies.
lol. uh huh.
> Some website owners think the best strategy is to opt their websites out of FLoC by attaching a header.
I've tried to look up which header that would be. The only thing I could find was a github issue, but only containing a request for such a header, not actually describing one. https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13
So I understand it correctly, currently publishers can't opt out from this tracking? What if you process sensitive data, e.g. protected by HIPAA, or attorney client communication?
I've tried to look up which header that would be. The only thing I could find was a github issue, but only containing a request for such a header, not actually describing one. https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13
So I understand it correctly, currently publishers can't opt out from this tracking? What if you process sensitive data, e.g. protected by HIPAA, or attorney client communication?
Short version:
Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=()
add_header Permissions-Policy interest-cohort=();
Thank you!
How would FloC compromise the integrity of sensitive or privileged data? It’s certainly creepy but I don’t see how that would work.
From how I understand it, site data like the URL or even the content of the website is fed into an ML model which outputs a cohort value. That cohort value might be changed by every single individual website you visit, or by content on that website. So it's possible that some sensitive data you'd rather keep private lands in the hands of Google. It's probably made even worse as websites can change their content and thus influence the ML model, tickling out data that would otherwise not have been available.
> The browser uses machine learning algorithms to develop a cohort based on the sites that an individual visits. The algorithms might be based on the URLs of the visited sites, on the content of those pages, or other factors.
https://github.com/WICG/floc
> The browser uses machine learning algorithms to develop a cohort based on the sites that an individual visits. The algorithms might be based on the URLs of the visited sites, on the content of those pages, or other factors.
https://github.com/WICG/floc
There's currently a tutorial on how to do this just below this link on the front page, posted 3 hours before this one.
It would be very interesting if such sites had to block floc due to regulatory constraints.
Also interesting if GDPR applied.
Basically, this would make it extremely risky for companies NOT to opt out of Floc.
Which might be the way to kill it
Also interesting if GDPR applied.
Basically, this would make it extremely risky for companies NOT to opt out of Floc.
Which might be the way to kill it
This website fails to argue why floc is bad for me. Does floc give me worse ads? Does floc slow down the browser? Does floc use up more memory?
GP likely knows why FLoC is bad. Their argument is that the site could be better because it's omitting the core reason it exits.
People have framed in their minds that "FLoC == tracking, no FLoC == no tracking". But that is actually 0% true, FLoC is less tracking than what is currently happening today
People think they are getting more tracked by this but in reality it is trying to make them be less tracked
People think they are getting more tracked by this but in reality it is trying to make them be less tracked
No FLoC: try to make out an individual among millions of people by correlating various info
FLoC: try to make out an individual among thousands of people by correlating various info
Do you not realize how much easier it becomes to track individuals?
FLoC: try to make out an individual among thousands of people by correlating various info
Do you not realize how much easier it becomes to track individuals?
>No FLoC: try to make out an individual among millions of people by correlating various info
No, it's try to make out an individual among 1 person who shares the same cookie.
No, it's try to make out an individual among 1 person who shares the same cookie.
Floc is trying to make tracking exclusively googles domain. By eliminating the technologies available to other parties.
They are straight up abusing their dominant market position, the "less tracking" bit is there so that when they are in front of a judge they can claim they did it all for the users and it's a net benefit to the users so they don't have to roll it back.
Isn't this better though? Before you would have to have a widget added to as many websites as possible, but now you can just rely on floc to do it for you. This sounds like it lowers the bar to entry.
I see a future where you're a cohort group of one, as computing power and storage allow for more fine-grained tracking.
If this hasn't happened yet, and this isn't just a false flag to cover the state of the art level tracking that's happening now.
If this hasn't happened yet, and this isn't just a false flag to cover the state of the art level tracking that's happening now.
less tracking is still tracking. If I install a system for my 70+ yro family members or give screens to small kids, I want the option of guaranteed no tracking. Saying use less tracking instead of full tracking is like saying eat this diet of excrement which contains less excrement.
Tracking isn't bad though. I don't see how a person age would make it any more good or bad to do either. Without tracking the internet wouldn't even work at a large scale. All it would take would be 1 malicious user and it would be impossible to know who it is since you aren't keeping that information around.
It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over cookies?
No because third party cookies (which are needed for cross site tracking) are often (and should be) blocked.
The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit.
The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large.
Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit.
The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large.
Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
You can block floc too... which kind of kills your argument that it’s worse since it’s not worse than 3rd party cookies
This is what Brave team says about FLoC vs 3rd party cookies [1]:
> Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome.
Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future.
[1] https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
> Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome.
Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future.
[1] https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
That sounds disingenuous. Most browsers do not block cookies by default. Cookies are a critical piece of the web. Chrome doesn't, Firefox doesn't, and ie/edge don't. Sounds more like Brave is giving themselves a pat on the back.
Have a read over https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/
Probably start with "What are some of those privacy concerns with FLoC?"
Probably start with "What are some of those privacy concerns with FLoC?"
Since the cohorts are so small (a few thousand), it's extremely likely that the FLOC id and the ip address is all you need to track someone, even behind NAT.
In general, there are so many conflicts of interest in the google ecosystem and good alternatives (though not as well integrated). Even if it’s less convenient it’s good to be open to other options and actively try to use and improve them.
We lost the war, haven't we?
> Chromium is open source
> Nearly every browser is based on open source code
"We lost the war, haven't we?"
What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused?
Microsoft got complacent and IE lost to Mozilla.
Mozilla got bloated, lazy and they lost their focus after several missteps, several of which alienated the fuck out of the FOSS community. (Forcing several distros to fork and rebrand to something like Iceweasel? Seriously? Way to dilute your own branding.)
Chrome took over because it simply was the better browser. It brought a lot of new things to the table that made Firefox look stale in relatively short amount of time. Is it still the better browser? I don't think that's quite as clear cut these days... but unfortunately, browsers like "Brave" aren't doing anyone any favors with their misleading presentation, sketchy tactics and meme like spamming from users who don't look beyond bitelines. So when it comes down to it, every Chromium fork that currently exists still has a business, with business motives, behind it.
The source is there. Does somebody want to make an effort to fork it and let it be the true privacy focused browser or are we just going to complain about losing a war that nobody's really fighting?
> Nearly every browser is based on open source code
"We lost the war, haven't we?"
What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused?
Microsoft got complacent and IE lost to Mozilla.
Mozilla got bloated, lazy and they lost their focus after several missteps, several of which alienated the fuck out of the FOSS community. (Forcing several distros to fork and rebrand to something like Iceweasel? Seriously? Way to dilute your own branding.)
Chrome took over because it simply was the better browser. It brought a lot of new things to the table that made Firefox look stale in relatively short amount of time. Is it still the better browser? I don't think that's quite as clear cut these days... but unfortunately, browsers like "Brave" aren't doing anyone any favors with their misleading presentation, sketchy tactics and meme like spamming from users who don't look beyond bitelines. So when it comes down to it, every Chromium fork that currently exists still has a business, with business motives, behind it.
The source is there. Does somebody want to make an effort to fork it and let it be the true privacy focused browser or are we just going to complain about losing a war that nobody's really fighting?
> What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused?
Off the top of my head? My rent. Someone has to pay it, and if I wanted to dethrone Chrome, I'd have to quit my 9-5. Also, my 9-5 is using my most productive hours.
Off the top of my head? My rent. Someone has to pay it, and if I wanted to dethrone Chrome, I'd have to quit my 9-5. Also, my 9-5 is using my most productive hours.
It's not googles fault that you can't afford to fork their browser into a competing product.
> What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused?
Widevine, for starters. It's also licensed by, you guessed it, Google.
Widevine, for starters. It's also licensed by, you guessed it, Google.
Google bought widevine last year. Now you can use it on raspberry pi, and other devices. So while true, your statement actually is an example of google making the infrastructure more available under the google umbrella.
Google didn't invent that particular DRM, but now that it's widespread, they have bought it outright.
I don't know if their purchase included the rights to open source it in the near future, but it wouldn't surprise me.
However, Amazon Prime Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix, Spotify and Disney+ all use widevine, so I imagine there are more companies at play in this scenario than just google.
Google didn't invent that particular DRM, but now that it's widespread, they have bought it outright.
I don't know if their purchase included the rights to open source it in the near future, but it wouldn't surprise me.
However, Amazon Prime Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix, Spotify and Disney+ all use widevine, so I imagine there are more companies at play in this scenario than just google.
>Google bought widevine last year.
Google bought widewine in 2010
>Google didn't invent that particular DRM, but now that it's widespread, they have bought it outright.
It invented most of it, in the last 10 years it owned widevine.
As for how open widevine is:
>I'm sorry but we're not supporting an open source solution like this
https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/widevine/gmail-thread.html
Or as Brian Bondy, of Brave, put it:
>This is a prime example for why free as in beer is not enough. Small share browsers are at the mercy of Google, and Google is stalling us for no communicated-to-us reason.
https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/10449#issueco...
So yeah, you can fork chromium and make your own nifty browser. But do not expect being able to play any video from any paid streaming service any time soon or ever.
Google bought widewine in 2010
>Google didn't invent that particular DRM, but now that it's widespread, they have bought it outright.
It invented most of it, in the last 10 years it owned widevine.
As for how open widevine is:
>I'm sorry but we're not supporting an open source solution like this
https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/widevine/gmail-thread.html
Or as Brian Bondy, of Brave, put it:
>This is a prime example for why free as in beer is not enough. Small share browsers are at the mercy of Google, and Google is stalling us for no communicated-to-us reason.
https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/10449#issueco...
So yeah, you can fork chromium and make your own nifty browser. But do not expect being able to play any video from any paid streaming service any time soon or ever.
The war has not ended yet. I see no point in declaring defeat.
Yes, people need to get out of the HN filter bubble and realize that this is a problem no-one in the real world actually cares about. The storm will continue in the teapot but no sites with any substantial traffic will do anything about it.
no one in the real world cares about privacy or encryption either, yet we still advocate for both
It depends on the scope I think. There's obviously nothing stopping anyone from running other browsers, blocking tracking as best they can, anonymizing as much as possible, or hell even starting their own networks to avoid it all together. The technology is still there, still open and free.
But the net now contains the general populace, and as such significant power has been amassed by controlling it. I don't believe the internet as we know it is in the hands of the netizens anymore, and I have to doubt that the majority of the netizens would even care.
Google and Amazon have both showed continued behavior showing that they'll eat, buy or smother anything that comes a little too close to them, why should we expect that it would be any different if we tried to kick their behaviors off the network?
But the net now contains the general populace, and as such significant power has been amassed by controlling it. I don't believe the internet as we know it is in the hands of the netizens anymore, and I have to doubt that the majority of the netizens would even care.
Google and Amazon have both showed continued behavior showing that they'll eat, buy or smother anything that comes a little too close to them, why should we expect that it would be any different if we tried to kick their behaviors off the network?
> "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
> "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It looks bleak... but hey. Hobbits toppled the Eye of Sauron.
> "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It looks bleak... but hey. Hobbits toppled the Eye of Sauron.
Somehow this reminds me a bit of the bible... Luke 22:42
> “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
> “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
If you want to keep the Chrome backend, but don't want to be FLoC'd, then consider Vivaldi:
https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
No one will ever redirect their chrome visitors to this site for a couple of reasons:
1. It is unfriendly and hostile.
2. It doesn't say what alternatives there are. Many people don't know about alternatives.
3. The biggest point of all: sites will lose the majority of their visitors if they redirected away chrome users.
1. It is unfriendly and hostile.
2. It doesn't say what alternatives there are. Many people don't know about alternatives.
3. The biggest point of all: sites will lose the majority of their visitors if they redirected away chrome users.
> Well isn't this the ugliest site you've ever visited?
That says it all. It's like the redirector wanted to hurt you.
That says it all. It's like the redirector wanted to hurt you.
Disagree. I'm here looking for clean code to redirect Chrome users to this message.
After all this site claims "The website you WANTED to visit redirected you here." and yet it doesn't give any clues how to do that properly. And no, I'm not trusting user agent values.
If I find a valid and good way I'm completely onboard for redirecting.
After all this site claims "The website you WANTED to visit redirected you here." and yet it doesn't give any clues how to do that properly. And no, I'm not trusting user agent values.
If I find a valid and good way I'm completely onboard for redirecting.
Are you sarcastic? If so, I cannot tell.
<script> window.location.href = ´//whateverurlyouwant.com' </script>
Of course you can just do it server side as well with a simple header set by your webserver or by a backend language.
<script> window.location.href = ´//whateverurlyouwant.com' </script>
Of course you can just do it server side as well with a simple header set by your webserver or by a backend language.
I dont understand why people that care so much for privacy just go and switch browsers? Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic.
I'm using FF myself and never had a problem with it
I'm using FF myself and never had a problem with it
Chrome and Edge have some interesting "integrations" that may seem like really small details but "just work". For Edge when you install Windows 10 for the first time it will automatically log into Live.com (Outlook) accounts so a new user will open that stuff up and immediately have access to their emails, documents from word, etc.
Similarly for Chrome all of the Google account stuff is very deeply integrated. Google goes through a decent amount of trouble to trust the shit out of those cookies too. I had a laptop that was unused for 18 months with Chrome on it, when I opened it back up it was still able to access everything without any kind of re-authentication. Firefox on the same laptop needed to be re-authorized.
EDIT: Not making the argument that these are valid reasons, just that users are super risk adverse/lazy.
Similarly for Chrome all of the Google account stuff is very deeply integrated. Google goes through a decent amount of trouble to trust the shit out of those cookies too. I had a laptop that was unused for 18 months with Chrome on it, when I opened it back up it was still able to access everything without any kind of re-authentication. Firefox on the same laptop needed to be re-authorized.
EDIT: Not making the argument that these are valid reasons, just that users are super risk adverse/lazy.
For HN users, sure.
But most people are not aware of the choice they make when they use Chrome, or its consequences for their privacy.
And web developers designing for Chrome first and Firefox second means it's more convenient for users to use Chrome to visit their websites.
But most people are not aware of the choice they make when they use Chrome, or its consequences for their privacy.
And web developers designing for Chrome first and Firefox second means it's more convenient for users to use Chrome to visit their websites.
Chrome is the internet for a lot of folk these days, the same way "the blue e with the swirl" (Internet Explorer) was the internet in the late 90s/early 00s
While I think its true that most people aren't aware of the privacy problem, i also think that a big part of that group also just doesn't care.
I'm using FF myself, but there are problems with playing some medias in desktop, and in mobile the problems are too many to count.
> Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic.
s/Chrome/Internet Explorer
s/Chrome/Internet Explorer
I feel like the real battle is not in things like this, but bigger future stuff. TBH - I think the future of the web will be different, and will render the past stuff irrelevant, and so the main aim is that the "big players" aren't allowed to gatekeep, and block future development via legal means.
Stuff like net-neutrality, and legality of reverse engineering protocols and APIs are key to this. The Ad-war is far from over, so long as people still own their own things - this is why I see the cloud, or at least the monopolisation cloud, and the monopolisation of certain hardware (chip fab etc) as at-least as important as software.
Stuff like net-neutrality, and legality of reverse engineering protocols and APIs are key to this. The Ad-war is far from over, so long as people still own their own things - this is why I see the cloud, or at least the monopolisation cloud, and the monopolisation of certain hardware (chip fab etc) as at-least as important as software.
> Internet Explorer 6 is better at this point.
Oh come on.
Oh come on.
> Don't even care. Internet Explorer 6 is better at this point.
Yeah, sure. It isn't.
If you redirect people to that site you can also serve them a 404.
Yeah, sure. It isn't.
If you redirect people to that site you can also serve them a 404.
> Google Chrome has become a slimy browser [...]
I don't think you'll convince any non-technical users with such language.
I don't think you'll convince any non-technical users with such language.
It doesn't convince me, and I'm highly technical user, I just don't want to jump to an unknown browser every time someone thinks my browser tracks my history, anyone's history is so over exaggerated this time.
No one can even articulate in plain english why this is a bad thing for people or affects their lives in any tangible way.
What an absolutely insufferable site. Completely ruins any point it might have had by being belittling and smug.
How can Google delete a website from the internet?
I mean they could stop use of their TLD, but you could move to another one, or publish an IP address.
I mean they could stop use of their TLD, but you could move to another one, or publish an IP address.
Any plans to add translations?
I can imagine a reaction at Google like 'They are up in arms against this?! But this is nothing compared to what we do already!'. This is their olive branch, in a way.
Putting things in the open is better than not. This is not a problem than can be solved by technical means, in my opinion. America doesn't even have GDPR.
Putting things in the open is better than not. This is not a problem than can be solved by technical means, in my opinion. America doesn't even have GDPR.
It's always the same reaction here: "use Firefox".
Mozilla are in the exact same business and are collecting, using and selling your data.
They literally bought several companies that click-track and included their software in Firefox with optional opt out.
I guess as long as their ads are plastered on your way to work, you'll just repeat what you see there.
Google bad, Mozilla good.
What precisely is my Firefox install sending to advertisers? Can you point to an example? Which advertisers? Can I prove this by opening Wireshark? Can you point to it in the Firefox source tree?
Mozilla included an add-on called Cliqz, which was activated by default in 1% of downloads.
They are a company run by marketing and sold as philanthropists.
Which works very well, especially in the tech sphere.
1% of downloads in Germany specifically*.
Not that it excuses the practice, but 1% of downloads in Germany is pretty different in scope than 1% of downloads globally.
I'm not against Mozilla or for Google or anything.
All i'm saying is, just because there is a bad actor doesn't make the other one good.
I see the same thing everywhere these days. In politics, in the tech sphere etc.
People tend to view one as good and the other as bad.
They're all bad and need to be held accountable all the time.
Then Google Docs, Drive, Voice and a few other apps with the addition of Chromebooks started to appear and all of the sudden a few key features stopped working for Firefox. Probably the most important teachable moment was just how few features it takes to flip users.
Maybe we'll see Firefox regain browser share are users dump Chrome. Edge even has a shot at this point - a strange irony bringing us full circle.
I guess the real question is how long until we iterate on this loop again? What will compel users to jump back into the embrace of <insert not yet but eventually evil company> versus the relatively consistent arms of Mozilla.
Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. While nowhere near as egregious they have some tracking happening ("experiments"), they aggressively push their Firefox Accounts stuff, appear to be selling spots on the homepage tabs, etc.