Privacy

[–] grandel@lemmy.ml 84 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Sucks for Google Chrome users

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 36 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

The number of people I see just drowning in ads is ridiculous. They're not using uBlock anyway. I don't know how they put up with it.

parent

[–] grandel@lemmy.ml 31 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They are brainwashed! I asked my wife if she wants me to remove the ads on her laptop. She refused. She wants to see them.

I genuinely can not comprehend it.

parent

[–] magnue@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Some people just don't like to tinker. They just accept the situation and live with it. For them the tinkering is a bigger headache than the ads.

parent

[–] bigchungus@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

The "tinkering" in question: clicking ~10 buttons from the home screen.

parent

[–] magnue@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Some people call IT when they get a blue screen

parent

[–] TrippingBalls@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Those are the same people who are using YouTube and or paying for YouTube premium... Who are the same people using windows

parent

[+] voxel@feddit.uk 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

parent

[–] grandel@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Very good point but I'd argue that if you know what a browser extension is and how to install it, you also know the difference between a browser and a search engine.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] lonksawakening@lemmy.ml 30 points 4 months ago

Still surprised there are so many people using Chrome.

They're this generations grannies who were stubborn about using Internet Explorer.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 27 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Didn't they already with manifest v3?

[–] novafunc@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They disabled it with flags, but manifest V2 still existed in the code and could be enabled. This is about Google now removing V2 from the code. That will make it harder for third party browsers to include V2, since they would need to patch it back in and develop new patches to keep it working.

parent

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The point was made very strongly at the time. Don't use a Google driven chrome project. You don't have that issue on Firefox or its forks.

parent

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

I have NO idea why Firefox has such a low adoption rate. I've been using it ever since Netscape Navigator was outdated and ive never had issues with it. uBlock Origin on mobile, baby!

parent

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 1 point 4 months ago

It used to freeze up a lot; and, then, you lost all tabs, if it did. That's why I'd stopped using it and switched to Chrome, back in the day.

With all the crap Google's doing, I tried Firefox out again something like 5 or 7 years ago and it's now better than what Chrome offers (for me, of course; I'd've probably still switched, anyway, just to deGoogle my life further).

I do find it starts to massively lag when I get to a certain number of tabs/windows; but Chrome doesn't seem to ever shut off my CPU fans under the same level of load so not like it gets a leg up.

parent

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 months ago

And "sideload" on Android.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I remember the junkbuster proxy from before this stuff was done with browser extensions. Is it time for that approach to make a comeback?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (4 children)

No, it's time for people to finally get their asses in gear and fucking ditch Chromium-based browsers for Firefox-based ones.

parent

[+] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus -8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Google owns Mozilla and have been slowly getting their greedy fingers in there and they have been changing it to suit their purposes.

Mozilla has been resisting, but it's only a matter of time.

parent

[–] f1error@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Google owns Mozilla

I'm going to need verifiable proof of this.

parent

[–] LostCarcosan@lemmy.today -2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Mozilla is funded by Google. Not sure about them owning it, but they do give Mozilla money

parent

[–] Bulletdust@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago

Google provide funding in return for Mozilla making Google the default search engine under FF, which is in itself is nothing like Chromium which is almost entirely developed and maintained by Google.

parent

[–] TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 14 points 4 months ago

oh no

[–] DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

Literally everything's better than Chrome.

[–] gnufuu@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

I once broke my leg and that was better than Chrome

parent

[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Biggest problem is that people are stupid and can't comprehend that there are alternatives to the shit being served up.

[–] dropdrip@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

I'd argue it's the government's fault. In the computer-age government's failed to educate their populations on what and how to use computers. They instead taught their students how to use X, Y and Z software. Ignorance here is the root of the problem. A symptom of ignorance could be stupidity I suppose... but users are lazy too. Governments also failed to regulate the nascent software-industries whilst pouring billions into that market. It's too harsh to just criticize the individual.

parent

[–] TrippingBalls@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

There's that saying... Can't fix stupid

parent

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

Wait!!! You mean the multi-trillion dollar mega-corp that promised that Manifest 3 would actually make adblockers more effective, lied to us???

[+] alia@nord.pub 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

probably for the same reason anyone has a substack

parent

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago

For spreading Nazi ideas?

parent

[+] alia@nord.pub 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

parent

[–] f3nyx@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

to reach the people with your message, you must go where they are.

this is marketing for people who are not already subscribed to their services or otherwise know about them.

parent

[–] Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus -1 points 4 months ago

because they signed up for one. this is a shock for a lot of people, it seems, but not everyone is going to behave the exact way you think they should.

parent

[–] CashDragon@realbitcoin.cash 1 point 3 months ago*

Use Brave browser, it has built in ad-block and is chrome based.

24 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I can think of no greater gift they can give Firefox.

Yes, I know there are better browsers, but Firefox will probably see the biggest bump in users.

[–] FiniteBanjo@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They might eventually try to pressure Firefox as well, as google is actually the largest funding contributor to Firefox. I wonder what the Open Source license dictates with the GECKO engine that firefox maintains? Could somebody make a fork and profit off of it or would we be forced to a different browser framework entirely?

parent

[–] green_copper@kbin.earth 7 points 4 months ago

Firefox and (all I think) of its components are licensed with the MPL 2.0. This means everyone is free to fork it and build their own product with it (free or for profit is not a criteria for FLOSS licenses), given that changes to the forked code must be made publicly available.

parent

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 4 months ago

It wouldn't be the first time they screwed over extension developers (see XUL extensions being discontinued)

parent

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The biggest effort so far (Ladybird) isn’t using it, nor are they using the Servo engine Mozilla got partway through building for FF.

I don’t know why, though.

parent

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago

They are the primary backer of Firefox. I guarantee they are already pressuring Mozilla to follow suite.

parent

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

Google’s stated reasons are technical: MV3 is supposedly more secure (for data collection and ad delivery), more performant (for data collection and ads), reduces complexity (to collect your data and serve ads).

There, I fixed it.

[–] flameleaf@programming.dev 8 points 4 months ago

MV3 is supposedly more secure (for data collection and ad delivery)

More secure from adblockers too. They're protecting the ads.

parent

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I'd say that your comment was taken out of context but nope, holy shit they are actually saying all of that.

parent

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 8 points 4 months ago

Yeah it's been a while. That's why I'm using Firefox among other things.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

"It'S fOr YoUr SeCuRiTy!"

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 4 points 4 months ago

I really thought that they already had? Wasn’t that what all the copious copium that Brave Broswer Boys were spreading was all about? The, “no actually I don’t mind that’s it’s chrome based because they have such good Adblock” argument.

[–] FiniteBanjo@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago

lol

lmao even

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Why is Proton still on Substack, the Nazi platform?

Of course, wouldn't be the first fascist-adjacent thing they've done...

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago

Is youtube a nazi platform, too? You can find all sorts of nazi bullshit there.

Substack has plenty of good content creators.

parent

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Substack, the Nazi platform?

Could you explain what you mean by that?

parent

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/feb/07/revealed-how-substack-makes-money-from-hosting-nazi-newsletters

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/

https://www.techpolicy.press/substack-founder-defends-commercial-relationships-with-nazis/

https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/substack-profited-from-paid-nazi-and-holocaust-denial-newsletters-investigation-finds/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/business/substack-nazis-content-moderation.html

parent

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Thanks.

In any case, that's not NAZI-ism, but simply late-stage capitalism at work. They have no shame, honor, morality, or genuine human concern... it's simply about the money, like loads of other places, sadly.

parent

[–] x74sys@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

Fascism and capitalism go hand in hand (in our age at least). Someone supporting capitalism is so likely to imply fascist views that it's basically impossible to find someone who's genuinely going to say capitalism is a good thing AND I don't have a problem with immigration and I want all human beings to be equal & free regardless of gender, skin color, etc.

TLDR: capitalism is fascism. fascism is capitalism. it's the same thing. at least today. maybe not in yesterday, and hopefully not tomorrow.

parent

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

I think you're mostly in the ballpark (mostly), but it's still highly misleading to associate so loosely and lazily. I mean, you have entities and corporations in which the founders truly are fascist / deeply right-wing, and it's worth calling them out and making that clear to as many folks as possible.

Disingenuously calling Substack "fascist" because it allows wacko subgroups to operate is the exact same argument you could make about Reddit, Facebook, and several others. It doesn't necessarily mean that the founders and showrunners are in fact fascists by definition, even as yes, the real-world definition of fascism and late-stage capitalism are indeed deeply intertwined.

So, no-- I reject the commenter above's disingenuous label. And a big part of the reason why we use words and language is to point out subtle differences in things. Because we don't have to be cavemen who lump disparate things together out of ignorance, fear, and whatnot.

parent

[–] x74sys@programming.dev 1 point 4 months ago

I was generalizing. There is a difference between calling a specific corporation fascist and calling the system that that corporation lives in fascist. Which also doesn’t mean that that corporation is not fascist.

And yeah I will actually go out of my way to call Facebook and Reddit fascist (I don’t know about substack, but it’s more likely than not), because they (to at least some degree ideologically and definitely monetarily) support those systems. But it’s not just that, the interests of capitalism today align (at least in the economic sense) extremely closely with those of fascism.