Cross-Posted, via Technology Community.

Google Chrome is downloading a 4 GB Gemini Nano model onto users' machines without consent, with no opt-in, no opt-out short of enterprise tooling, and an automatic re-download every time the user deletes it. The pattern is identical to the Anthropic Claude Desktop case I wrote about last month, but the scale is between two and three orders of magnitude larger. This article does the legal analysis and, for the first time, the environmental analysis. The numbers are not small.

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 6 months ago

"Police! We saw your electricity bill! You're growing weed in there!"

"No no, I use chrome"

"Ok carry on"

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    a decade or more ago chrome was the nice new browser endorsed by techies replacing evil IE. kinda funny thinking back now

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I think about the slogan “don’t be evil” about once a week. I wonder if the founders of google ever think about it still.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Anybody know a good guide for getting off of Google? It's woven into a lot of my phone

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Don't try do it all at once. It takes a few years usually. I recommend starting with changing your search engine and browser.

    Then setup a new email and forward emails from your old email to it while you slowly migrate it. Then go service by service and look at the alternatives. If you don't like any its fine to stay on Google just do what you can every thing you remove is money out of Google pocket.

    If you want to go full self-hosted there's this guide:

    https://wiki.futo.org/index.php/Introduction_to_a_Self_Managed_Life:_a_13_hour_%26_28_minute_presentation_by_FUTO_software

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    This reminds me of back when I first tried Chrome some many years back. I didn't like it so I uninstalled it and a few days later it was back again without me having done anything other than shutting down & restarting my PC. Had to dig deep into parts you don't ever need to touch for a normal uninstall to get rid of it for good and vowed to never install Chrome again because this is peak virus behaviour. Stuck with Firefox through it's absolute lowest performance because of this, too.

    Now I do have to deal with Chrome at work and I really hate it. Sadly the CEO loves Chrome so what can you do...

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Certain websites are utter garbage if you don't use chrome. I work from time to time with the American Bureau of Shipping and even with a user agent switcher, firefox outright doesn't load. I already don't like ABS but this makes them even more irritating to deal with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    This is all part of Google's long winded plan of destroying open browsing standards.

    For those sites, I just close them and move on and use another. I do that with any site that is total shit or loaded with garbage fly out menus and paywalls and the like. See ya.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    If it's a shop: idc, if they refuse to work with other browsers they clearly don't want my money.

    If it's some form of authority: I have zero issues with escalating the problem by demanding they give me a paper version of whatever instead. I'm not living in the US, so I'm (still) able to pull this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    If you're on windows, check the task scheduler. There are, by default, some update tasks that get installed when you first install chrome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    That happened some 20+ years ago. I'm on Linux by now, no way I'll willingly put Win11 on my PC. But thanks, maybe it's useful for someone else.

    Either ways it's not anything that ever should have happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    I was already dumpstering them for the ublock nonsense so this just gives me smug satisfaction.

  • source
  • [+] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I wonder if disabling the Chrome app on android helps. I've had it disabled for a while. I occasionally run into a page or app integration that fails and have to re enable it temporarily but I always go back and disable it. Fuck Google.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    they got caught trying secretely install android spyware core app , they were testing the waters.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*
    5 comments in c/browsers@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 8 points 6 months ago*

    "...without consent."

    Reminder: Chrome is a closed-source, proprietary browser. It has been able to do anything it wants without your consent since it was created.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Their energy estimates are way off. 240wh/4gb download is too high by 100x.

    It's not clear that there is a privacy argument. That address bar content is sent to google was always the case.

    There is a bloatware argument especially if the only added functionality is form-fill which was done fairly satisfactorily without the 4gb download.

    OTOH, gemini nano is now effectively open weight model if it, and it is likely a hack will permit user access to the bloat tax.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If downloading a 4GB file is such a climate disaster, I think we need to examine stuff like the Nvidia driver (0.7GB), games, all of npm, etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The concern isn't about the download, it's about the power it uses during local inferencing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    That would certainly be a more apt concern, but the article is specifically talking about the network bandwidth:

    The article is, (in my opinion) unfairly and intentionally, confusing the non-consensual download energy use with the optional inference energy use.

  • source
  • parent