this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
262 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

37737 readers
480 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
262
Google gets its way, bakes a user-tracking ad platform directly into Chrome (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by teft@startrek.website to c/technology@beehaw.org
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lloram239@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’ve used firefox for over 15 years and see no reason to change

https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml

[–] hare_ware@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Okay, but change to what then? All the other options are just Chrome, Safari, and Firefox again.

[–] lloram239@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ungoogle-Chromium, Brave, Vivaldi, Librewolf, anything that isn't paid by Google. That they are still based on Chrome or Firefox doesn't really matter, since they remove the undesirable parts of them.

[–] unfnknblvbl@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

they are still based on Chrome or Firefox doesn't really matter, since they remove the undesirable parts of them.

Actually it does matter, since Google are killing off the ability for ad blockers to work with a new manifest specification in Chromium.

[–] eleanor@social.hamington.net 6 points 1 year ago

In the case of Brave and Vivaldi, they add their own undesirable parts (Brave adds crypto bullshit and Vivaldi is closed-source, so $DEITY knows what they're adding).

Librewolf is open and doesn't contribute to the Chromium monoculture; so it's the best option

[–] comicallycluttered@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, reading that "censorship" section alone tells you all you need to know about the author there.

Literally hammering 1984 quotes like they love to do (dude, if Mozilla has the same kind of power as the Party, I must be chilling under a rock somewhere). Even has one of their sections called "Cucking to Manifest V3".

Back to the "censorship":

They want to algorithmically decide which content is allowed to be posted, and which isn't. This is especially relevant in the context of the fake pandemic, during which the whole world has been enslaved exactly thanks to the propagation of the "factual voices" over the so-called "disinformation". The "disinformation" here includes mentioning the factual harm done by COVID vaccines or even proven alternative treatments for COVID itself. So, Mozilla supports a world where people are harmed without being able to defend themselves.

Yeah, sorry. No. People with this little regard for reality shouldn't be taken seriously when presenting arguments.

This whole screed is aimed at a very particular brand of user that looooooves to pretend they're all "facts", when it's just emotional outrage over perceived slights. Same ones who complained about DDG when they tried to deal with Russian propaganda links showing up too often.

It's all very conspiratorial, as is expected, yet offers no real answers because conspiracies very rarely have any.

Also, have to lol at the SystemD shit showing up at the end there as well.

[–] lloram239@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, reading that “censorship” section alone tells you all you need to know about the author there.

The site is obviously a bit over the top, however that doesn't change the fact that the (criminally overpaid) Mozilla CEO openly endorses censorship:

[–] Lowbird@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Your link doesn't seem to support your statement. Do you mean the part that advocates "turn on by default" tools to amplify factual information over disinformation? Because "turn on by default" implies an off switch.

It's not possible for search engines to make zero decisions about what to prioritize in results, anyway. How would you prefer they sort the absurd quantity of results? Especially now SEO listicles try to drown everything else out?