5 ms·

Google Chrome’s Users Take a Back Seat to Its Bottom Line

61 points by Sami_Lehtinen 8y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
I think there is a rule against sensationalized titles.
- majewsky 8y ago
  There is a rule against submitters editing titles to be more sensationalist, but in this case, the submitter copied the submission's title verbatim.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    I don't think that is true. There have been cases in the recent past where the mods changed titles because they were overly sensational, even if they were the original title.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      Well, the guidelines say: > [Please] use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. This sounds like the submitter MAY tone it down, with "MAY" like in RFC 2119.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
  this is important
- Confiks 8y ago
  Your comment is too short, information-free and only implicitly makes a point; it doesn't argue why this title would be sensationalized by the EFF. The article proposes that while "recently, developers of major browsers have started building tracking protections into their own products (...) Google Chrome, the largest browser in the world, has no built-in tracker blocker, nor has the company indicated any plans to build one. "Alphabet has a vested interest in helping track people and serve them ads, even when that puts the company at odds with its users. And that may explain why Chrome lacks real tracking protections." These two main points, regardless of whether you agree with them, are reflected in the title.
jimnotgym 8y ago
Aside, have EFF just changed their logo? It jarred with me initially.
privateSFacct 8y ago
This article is confused about what users want. EFF and politicians just hate cookies. If only users knew the website used cookies they would choose something else they cry out. A billion cookie warning clickthroughs later - nope. If only we made the cookie warning scarier with GPDR, including lots more details about how the scary cookie will be used. Nope - click click click go the users, permit, OK, Allow etc. Aside from EFF hysteria here, let's focus on what users might want. Users want * their computers to be free of malware (looking at every company out there that installs bloatware and malware every chance they get on PC's and phone's with totally bogus privacy policies), * want to be safe when they visit a website (not make it easy for a random website clicked on from a phising link to go the ransomeware route), * want to be able to browse in incognito mode from time and time if they want to leave less of a digital footprint. * want to be able to browse relatively safely without their ISP and or govt selling all their data about exactly which pages they visit (google's push around SSL may help here a bit, and these privacy invasions tend to be huge and at utility scale), * Maybe would sort of like certificate authorities not to give out chase bank SSL certs to random middlebox DPI companies (google's aggressive stance on CA ecosystem after seeming total inaction by folks like firefox and IE and Safari). * Help move folks to proper 2-factor (non-SMS based) to avoid account hijackings * While making lots of things easy (auto suggestions everywhere etc). In short, stuff that helps users avoid messes in their day to day life, but users seem happy to give up a lot to have maps, search, new devices etc all work together relatively smoothly. Depending on how you count, google is cleaning up in this space BTW. Talk to some businesses who've made the switch to chrome + google apps about the number of phishing / ransomware issues they have (if they were another companies email service + ie / firefox). Check out the absolute trash results (active malware) bing can return for basic search terms. https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/bing-is-pushing-malware-when-you-search-for-chrome/ https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/bing-is-pushing-malware-when-y... Seriously, bing should run the landing pages of adds through google's filters. Users privacy is under absolute attack. Of all the people attacking this privacy (from governments to ISPS and more), google is not top of list. It makes for a good clickbait headline though. BTW - Apple in same boat on enviro issues, despite all the Greenpeace attacks on apple, if you looked at the enviro story and workplace labor issues in android space you'd be shocked.
- 8y ago
MonkeyDan 8y ago
Don’t forget the inability to install add-ons (i.e. ad-blockers) in Android Chrome.
metaos 8y ago
seemed like a fair and balanced article to me.
aussieguy1234 8y ago
"If everyone used Tor Browser or Brave, many data brokers’ and trackers’ current business models would cease to be viable"
- tssva 8y ago
  I consider Brave's highjacking of advertising revenue in an attempt to force web sites to monetize their site through Brave highly unethical and am disappointed to see it mentioned here.

61 points by Sami_Lehtinen 8y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

I think there is a rule against sensationalized titles.

majewsky 8y ago
There is a rule against submitters editing titles to be more sensationalist, but in this case, the submitter copied the submission's title verbatim.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  I don't think that is true. There have been cases in the recent past where the mods changed titles because they were overly sensational, even if they were the original title.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    Well, the guidelines say: > [Please] use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. This sounds like the submitter MAY tone it down, with "MAY" like in RFC 2119.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
this is important
Confiks 8y ago
Your comment is too short, information-free and only implicitly makes a point; it doesn't argue why this title would be sensationalized by the EFF. The article proposes that while "recently, developers of major browsers have started building tracking protections into their own products (...) Google Chrome, the largest browser in the world, has no built-in tracker blocker, nor has the company indicated any plans to build one. "Alphabet has a vested interest in helping track people and serve them ads, even when that puts the company at odds with its users. And that may explain why Chrome lacks real tracking protections." These two main points, regardless of whether you agree with them, are reflected in the title.

jimnotgym 8y ago

Aside, have EFF just changed their logo? It jarred with me initially.

privateSFacct 8y ago

This article is confused about what users want. EFF and politicians just hate cookies. If only users knew the website used cookies they would choose something else they cry out. A billion cookie warning clickthroughs later - nope. If only we made the cookie warning scarier with GPDR, including lots more details about how the scary cookie will be used. Nope - click click click go the users, permit, OK, Allow etc. Aside from EFF hysteria here, let's focus on what users might want. Users want * their computers to be free of malware (looking at every company out there that installs bloatware and malware every chance they get on PC's and phone's with totally bogus privacy policies), * want to be safe when they visit a website (not make it easy for a random website clicked on from a phising link to go the ransomeware route), * want to be able to browse in incognito mode from time and time if they want to leave less of a digital footprint. * want to be able to browse relatively safely without their ISP and or govt selling all their data about exactly which pages they visit (google's push around SSL may help here a bit, and these privacy invasions tend to be huge and at utility scale), * Maybe would sort of like certificate authorities not to give out chase bank SSL certs to random middlebox DPI companies (google's aggressive stance on CA ecosystem after seeming total inaction by folks like firefox and IE and Safari). * Help move folks to proper 2-factor (non-SMS based) to avoid account hijackings * While making lots of things easy (auto suggestions everywhere etc). In short, stuff that helps users avoid messes in their day to day life, but users seem happy to give up a lot to have maps, search, new devices etc all work together relatively smoothly. Depending on how you count, google is cleaning up in this space BTW. Talk to some businesses who've made the switch to chrome + google apps about the number of phishing / ransomware issues they have (if they were another companies email service + ie / firefox). Check out the absolute trash results (active malware) bing can return for basic search terms. https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/bing-is-pushing-malware-when-you-search-for-chrome/ https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/bing-is-pushing-malware-when-y... Seriously, bing should run the landing pages of adds through google's filters. Users privacy is under absolute attack. Of all the people attacking this privacy (from governments to ISPS and more), google is not top of list. It makes for a good clickbait headline though. BTW - Apple in same boat on enviro issues, despite all the Greenpeace attacks on apple, if you looked at the enviro story and workplace labor issues in android space you'd be shocked.

8y ago

MonkeyDan 8y ago

Don’t forget the inability to install add-ons (i.e. ad-blockers) in Android Chrome.

metaos 8y ago

seemed like a fair and balanced article to me.

aussieguy1234 8y ago

"If everyone used Tor Browser or Brave, many data brokers’ and trackers’ current business models would cease to be viable"

tssva 8y ago
I consider Brave's highjacking of advertising revenue in an attempt to force web sites to monetize their site through Brave highly unethical and am disappointed to see it mentioned here.