Follow

web browsers, that search company 

I don't understand why so many are excited about using ungoogled-chromium when future development relies on Google and all it does is remove superficial Google things like telemetry and analytics but doesn't remove the overarching influence that Google can exert on the development of the web stack. All you've done is strip a logo off something and congratulate yourself for solving surveillance capitalism but not really tackled the actual problem that a free and open web needs truly free and open browsers.

re: web browsers, that search company 

Google can still force development of QUIC in directions that are beneficial to its advertising business and hurt communities that don't contribute as much profit, that likely don't have gigabit fibre coming into their homes. Google can also steer development of things like digital rights management, UI stuff, how JavaScript should work, etc etc etc.

If our main competitor to Google is a derivative of a Google product shouldn't we be worried by that?

Show thread

re: web browsers, that search company 

@irl We should start being _really_ worried as soon as we see the "other" main competitor (Mozilla Corp.) has ... quite a funding dependency on Google.
It doesn't get much better I guess. 😐

re: web browsers, that search company 

@z428 It's good to pick up on that being a problem, it's bad that the result has generally been to avoid Firefox in favour of Chromium-based browsers. It's really weird to watch people justify that.

Mozilla is a non-profit organisation, which means that it will happily take donations. Maybe it's not been managed very well and maybe the CEO salary puts people off, but a non-profit organisation is exactly what you want in charge of making a web browser and right now Mozilla is probably the best bet for making that happen.

Mozilla might have dependency on Google money, but Google isn't giving money because it wants to support free software, it's because it wants to be the search engine you use. The more people move to Chromium derivatives, the less incentive there is for Google to give money to Mozilla.

So yeah, if Mozilla taking Google money upsets you enough that you want to switch to Chromium, you're going to end up saving Google that money because there won't be any need to give it to Mozilla anymore.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@irl The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. Mozilla Corporation, though, is not. I don't at all object with that, just wanted to point out that both approaches seem reasonably bad to me - not even talking about the idea that "fighting" Google in the browser market makes little to no sense if the funding of the most prominent alternative depends on Google. What if Google stopped funding Mozilla because they can't or don't want to afford ...

re: web browsers, that search company 

@irl ... that anymore? Who would this hurt more - Mozilla and its movement or Google? Other way 'round, would Mozilla _really_ be competing with Google (to a point where things start actually get difficult in terms of conflicts) while depending on their money? That seems a conflict of interest, to say the very least.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@z428 I think Mozilla has some trust to rebuild, but they're still in a place where they could take Google's money for now and diversify over time.

I think people are starting to get the whole thing that if you're not paying for it then you're the product not the customer.

I should probably read up on how they are structured because I didn't realise there was a for-profit part.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@irl I don't even think that "for-profit" is bad, and to some point understand the reason for that. What I never understood is _why_ they chose to be so close to Google rather than looking into different means of funding. Like: Monetize services they own in a better way. Sync is helpful. Pocket is helpful too. Sure, Google has deep pockets filled with cash but this kind of funding pretty much screams for controversy. 😟

@openscience Wow, I always kind of suspected that but seen as an image these figures *are* scary. 😶 @irl

web browsers, that search company 

@irl This is one reason why the web is doomed to me, along with the sheer complexity of the web¹, which is also one of the things that enable Google to more or less dictacte what the web should be.
I'd rather make Gemini software, or anything really that's not controlled by megacorps.

1. drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Rec

re: web browsers, that search company 

@owl Gemini is cool, but without form support it's not a substitute for the web.

Complexity is certainly a bad thing for anything computer related.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@irl It's not a substitute for all of the web, no (and does not aim to be,) but for a useful and fun chunk of it. :)
And also I can actually write a Gemini browser (git.sr.ht/~alva/rocket) but couldn't write a Chrome-compatible web browser if I spent my whole life on it.
It's not for people any more.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@owl I'm actually really excited to see so many people writing Gemini clients/servers. This sort of thing hasn't happened for a long time with the web, and while I still prefer hosting a Gopher server over Gemini it's clear that Gemini has momentum.

web browsers, that search company 

@irl Google is cringe, Chromium is cringe, use Firefox or qutebrowser.
Google managed to centralize almost the whole mainstream internet in their own interest and this is so disgusting. People usually know that they have no privacy but they don't care because "they have nothing to hide" or because it would be tOo UnCoNvEniEnT to switch to something more ethical which actually thinks about their userbase instead of money.

web browsers, that search company 

@irl I want to murder someone whenever there is that one who says that they have Nothing To Hide™️

re: web browsers, that search company 

@matthilde it's not just privacy. I used to work in internet engineering and followed the development of the QUIC transport protocol. the development of this protocol optimised for people who had fast and reliable internet connections to the detriment of those that don't. that's because it gives the people that are worth advertising money a better experience and give Google more profit. if you're on a crappy wireless link with high packet loss or you need to use high-latency satellite links because you're away from big infrastructure, then tough, you will have a bad time because you're also probably not worth big advertising money and Google doesn't care about you.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@matthilde but yes also privacy.

re: web browsers, that search company 

@irl Ah yes, Social Classes™️

web browsers, that search company 

@matthilde @irl but isn't qutebrowser based on chromium? wikipedia says that it is

re: web browsers, that search company 

@IngaLovinde @matthilde looks like it can be built with either webkit (safari) or blink (google) but it's not clear.

web browsers, that search company 

@irl I only have it installed because I need my stuff to work in Chromium as well - Chrome-only bugs are a thing for some time now

re: web browsers, that search company 

@kescher that's reasonable. the point is not to punish people for using chrome. they've not chosen chrome because they hate privacy or because they love being tracked, packaged and sold to advertisers. and it's reasonable to test that your stuff works in chrome because if it doesn't, you'll lost market share to someone else who works in chrome better.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
hackers.town

A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.