9 ms·
> "The Dragonfly memo reveals that a prototype of the censored search engine was being developed as an app for both Android and iOS devices, and would force use
by JoshMnem 8y ago
> "The Dragonfly memo reveals that a prototype of the censored search engine was being developed as an app for both Android and iOS devices, and would force users to sign in so they could use the service. The memo confirms, as The Intercept first reported last week, that users’ searches would be associated with their personal phone number. The memo adds that Chinese users’ movements would also be stored, along with the IP address of their device and links they clicked on."
This seems to be the direction for all users of Google. The new version of Chrome signs you into the browser even if you don't want to sign into the software itself. You can't really use Google's browsing device (Google Chrome) without providing your identity, if you ever want to sign into a Google website.
Support for Firefox is more important than ever.
- tapoxi 8y agoOr you could just use Chromium.
- JoshMnem 8y agoChromium has many of the same problems as Chrome. I don't think Google can be trusted to not abuse their position any more.
- noir_lord 8y agoI wonder how far they can push it before one of the larger more open distro's just goes "yep, that was far as you are going" and we end up with the Chromed Ice Weasel.
- _red 8y agoWell there is already vivaldi, iridium, and ungoogled-chromium. But a better choice, IMO, is to install Brave since they are not just removing spy-features, but enabling new ideas to incentivize support for a more privacy focused internet.
- JoshMnem 8y agoThe ad model is fundamentally broken, because all roads there eventually lead to tracking and online garbage. Monocultures are bad, so I don't think people should only use Chrome-based browsers. Google once tried to do ads without going down the wrong path, but that clearly hasn't worked out. I think that Firefox Quantum is a better alternative.
- yuhong 8y agoYea, that was what my essay/overview was about, including tracing these problems back to Larry/Sergey. It is probably worth posting a link here: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-doubleclick-mozilla-overview_92.html http://yuhongbao.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-doubleclick-moz...
- matheusmoreira 8y agoHow effective is ungoogled-chromium at removing Google from the browser?
- 18pfsmt 8y agoHave you looked at this project? https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
- JoshMnem 8y agoI've seen it, but Chromium is fundamentally a Google product and it still has some of Chrome's problems. If we want future generations to experience technology freedom, we should avoid monocultures.
- sincerely 8y agoThat has the same issue as Waterfox and other projects where you lose out on quick fixes for discovered exploits.
- pymai 8y agothere are other chromium based browsers like vivaldi and brave that might disable a lot of the google crap but i couldn't be certain of the top of my head
- binomialxenon 8y agoI'd rather non-Chrome browsers such as Firefox and Safari keep some market share so we don't end up with too many "Only works in Chrome" webistes.
- jbigelow76 8y agoYou can't really use Google's browsing device (Google Chrome) without providing your identity, if you ever want to sign into a Google website. That makes total sense. Google is in the business of selling ads, this requires getting as much information as possible on users, through any means possible, software downloads, online services, it's all the same in the end.
- prepend 8y agoGoogle makes money off ads through Firefox, ie, and safari. Requiring absolute browsing data on all users goes above and beyond just meeting their bottom line.
- JoshMnem 8y agoI'm not sure if you are defending their abuse of users or just stating the reasons why they do it.
- jbigelow76 8y agoThe reasons as to why they do it defend the reasons as to how they do it, the end justifies the means.
- mercer 8y agoThat doesn't answer JoshMnem's question. Justifies the means to whom? If the answer is google, I'm not sure what the point of your comment was, as that's pretty obvious...
- jbigelow76 8y agoYes, my answer was google, I found the question to be as obvious as you found my answer to be.
- mercer 8y agoWell, this is all rather pointless then!
- krn 8y agoI installed Chromium on Ubuntu today, and on the first run was given an opportunity to opt out from Google's personalized ads being shown to me based on my entire web browsing history. It was that moment when I realized, that what I had just installed was not primarily a web browser, but a Google application with a web browsing feature built-in. Because everything in it was built to optimize Google's ad revenue. It even had an ad blocker enabled by default, which made Google's ads stand out by disabling the ads by others.
- apostacy 8y agoI am so saddened by how much we trust Google. I wish we regarded Google software with more suspicion. Would people have been nearly as upset if it had been Google that acquired GitHub? I miss the days of being suspicious of Microsoft. But Microsoft isn't nearly as diabolical as Google, nor are they as competent.
- blacksmith_tb 8y agoI'd argue MS has become less diabolical as they've become more competent (VS Code, e.g.). Google is more complex, they are certainly looking more diabolical, not quite sure about the more competent - I suppose it only matters that they are competent enough to be dangerous.
- fartcannon 8y agoI'd argue that Microsoft is much worse, what with their utter ubiquity in corporate environments, linkedin, github and win home users. Google ruined cell phones and Microsoft ruined personal computing.
- mcny 8y agoThe problem is it is often difficult to decide where incompetence ends and where malicious begins. Microsoft Edge or at least EdgeHTML has a stated goal of being 100% compatible with Google Chrome. As you might guess, it isn't even close. Why? There are far too many competent people at Microsoft to say "never attribute to malice what can be described by incompetence". This isn't the kind of incompetence at Equifax.
- magicalist 8y ago> The new version of Chrome signs you into the browser even if you don't want to sign into the software itself. You can't really use Google's browsing device (Google Chrome) without providing your identity, if you ever want to sign into a Google website. It doesn't sounds like you've actually tried this. It doesn't sign you into anything but the google website, just like before. You have to turn on browser sync to sign into the browser. Seriously, try it. Your passwords, history, etc aren't there, and nothing shows up in your history from that session. Signing out of gmail still signs you out. The new system is annoying because it makes it more difficult (impossible?) to sync to one Google account while having another one be the primary signed in one, but it doesn't sign the browser into anything on its own.
- JoshMnem 8y agoI've tried it multiple times and logging into a Google website automatically logs you into the browser itself (not just the website). Trying to clear cookies now doesn't clear Google's cookies either. Chrome 69.
- DenisM 8y agoNot for me it doesn't. 69 on Mac OS.
- codefined 8y agoIt's not just JoshMnem who has this, the same happens to me. Running 69 on Windows.
- magicalist 8y ago> the same happens to me In about:settings, does it say at the top "Syncing to codefined", or is there a button you can press to "Sync as codefined". Maybe the confusion is the UI.
- quickben 8y agoWhere are you two located? I have noticed Google discriminates per location. For example creating a Gmail account from Canada isn't possible without a phone number, whereas creating one from Europe is.
- snr 8y ago>"The new version of Chrome signs you into the browser even if you don't want to sign into the software itself" Damn. I just realized that. Signing out of browser signs you out of GMail. And signing into GMail signs you into the browser. Went to download Edge but turns out it's not on Win Server. MSFT really needs to get its act together.
- zachberger 8y agoOut of curiosity why are you using a web browser on a server?
- pmontra 8y agoI used one yesterday on Windows Server 2016 Datacenter because the new version of the only application running there needed .NET 4.7.2. It started IE which after a long sequence of allowing web sites (tracking and not, included Google Analytics) eventually managed to download the installer. IE was already on the server. I really wanted to install Firefox to avoid all that absurdity of whitelisting sites.
- snr 8y agoEmployer's choice of workstation OS :/
- koolba 8y agoWhy not Firefox?
- snr 8y agoYep that's what I ended up eventually downloading. Edge on Win 10 is not bad actually.
- oh_sigh 8y agoA more appropriate direction would be "trust Google as much as you trust the government of the area you're in" Google has clearly showed that they will kowtow to whatever the local law is. As far as I can tell they do this as a last option though, and not just because they don't believe in certain ideas of privacy.
- zaarn 8y agoThe only remaining google usage I have is the Android play store, though I should flash a custom rom so I can use yalp store more effectively. I'm done with Google and refuse to support their products and services.
- Markoff 8y agoTBH Yalp store it's very clunky and unreliable, you will find out when you get rid off gapps like i did, it would be probably easier to use apkmirror
- AndrewKemendo 8y agoSupport for Firefox is more important than ever. Agreed. I had always been a FF user, but switched to chrome about a year ago because it was faster. The latest version of Chrome pushed me back to Firefox, as it's WAY slower and not particularly friendly to tracking, even with Ghostery/uBlock etc... installed