7 ms·

Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was won

Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account integration... the forced logging into the account... adding custom adblock (which doesn't block most of the ads)... and now this: disabling adblockers. I'm glad that I stopped using it.

pojzon 8y ago
Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.
- pleasecalllater 8y ago
  All the I-have-nothing-to-hide people, please publish your bank account, address, SSN, passwords and other information the bank can ask when trying to transfer the money. Yea, I know... so they really have something to hide, right? So why not to start caring about the privacy and start thinking?
  - konart 8y ago
    > I-have-nothing-to-hide Not one of them, but I hope you realize that this 'example' is completely off mark. I have nothing to hide if we are talking about that new hifi system I was looking on Amazon, I don't care if google knows what did I have for breakfast, I might even be ok with you knowing my address, but this is fundamentally different from you haveing keys from my apartment or my bank account.
    - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
      I'm not necessarily of this opinion, but his view is that knowing what you had for breakfast and your address is the same as your bank account # or house keys; it's just that people haven't realized this yet. Their argument is that the reason why people say house keys, or bank act # is different is because they are protecting something of value. His argument is what you do on a daily basis is just as valuable you just don't know it yet. The other argument against is "yes my privacy/ daily activity may have 'value', but unlike my bank account or house keys people can't take something from me from knowing it. " That's more up to opinion, but the argument is knowing you so well, someone can take your independence. A bit dystopian, but imagine n years from now, ML is good enough to predict your responses and behaviors to 80+% of things. Companies now use it to effectively get you to make decisions they want. Combinations of timing, placement, location, repetition, persuasion, counter-argument all to produce a desired result, but unlike present day extremely effective and possibly without your awareness. If there is a way to get our wet ware to do it, ML will figure it out. Advertising/Marketing/Sales become a game of Go, where you're the Go board. Best ML wins. We like to think we're fully in control of our decision making facilities, but study after study shows that's mostly an illusion. Our sub-conscience mostly decides for us, and then our brains rationalize this away after the fact. The fear is that by giving away your emotions, your responses, your ocean 5 factor model, your preferences, your habits, and a playground to test all of this in you are potentially giving up your independence at a future time. It's all dystopian, it's not guaranteed, but it pans out as all likely directions and very probable tech.
      - binaryblitz 8y ago
        At a certain point, is that necessarily a bad thing? If the AI knows me so well, it's probably something I would buy/want anyway. If my house starts cooking bacon and eggs in the morning based on it's analysis of me, and there's a 90% chance that's what I want, awesome. A lot of people already do it with driving. On my commute to work every day, I go the way google maps tells me to. Google is effectively controlling traffic patterns, but it's made driving to work faster. I realize it could possibly be used for evil, but by the time we get there, most if not all, of the people reading this will be dead by that point, so we'll never know.
        neuralRiot 8y ago
        It's not that they know what you want, it's that they make you want it. And that destroys individuality, creativity and the last bit of freedom we still have.
        craftinator 8y ago
        Because to a company using ML to impart control over your behavior, you are a $. They want to extract value from you, just like every other company, government, etc... If they become really, really good at this, you are going to have a low standard of living (because you are being mined for value), and make noncoherent decisions constantly (you will no longer be rational, nor have a functional personality). To some degree, this has already been happening for decades, since psychologists began formalising advertising into a science. Look at the increasing percentage of lower class families and how diminished their average value is. This isn't caused by time localized events, like a 5 year recession or a housing market bubble. This is the result of extremely fine-tuned and effective advertising, that has caused cultural shifts towards greater and more irrational consumerism. ML allows the advertisers to be much much more effective; they no longer even have to manually understand their market to manipulate it. Again, look at the growing disparity between the richest 1% and the rest of the schmucks. That 1% is soaking up the profits of extremely effective advertising, which the rest of us are paying for.
        bad_user 8y ago
        To add to what @neuralRiot, the mistake in your thinking is that you're imagining AI as your assistant. But it won't necessarily be your assistant, since you don't actually own it and especially if you're not paying money, you're not the customer. To give an example, imagine if Google Maps took you on an alternative route, not because you'd arrive faster, but because on that route there are ads you need to watch, or because GMaps wants to free the road for some high profile travelers and you're just getting in the way. Waze is already serving commercials while you're driving. And given the weird routes it has taken me on, I now have no idea if Waze's algorithm chooses certain routes because it would be faster, or because it wants me to watch ads, or because it wants to take me off the main road to clear it for others. Companies are already doing evil shit with real consequences. Facebook for example did experiments on manipulating people's feelings. Target figured out a girl is pregnant before her father. Plenty of other examples. It's just that people aren't paying attention.
  - chappi42 8y ago
    It needs regulation. In other areas there is also, e.g. cigarettes, alcohol. 'We' don't allow people to e.g. freely consume drugs. The pressure is not (only) on the individual (your: 'start thinking'), The society as a whole has made rules what goes and what not. There are comparable issues with Google and Facebook. Let economic instruments fix the problems. Tax advertisement. Heavily if necessary. If I want to drink a Whisky there is a lot of tax (to 'help with my thinking'..;). The same needs to be done with advertisement, imho.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Don't forget the people who had it installed because it was bundled with some other software during installation...
  - pleasecalllater 8y ago
    Yea, this is also quite terrifying that many companies trick people to install Chrome while installing their software. Trick - because the option is too often checked by default, and sometimes it's hidden in the text so it's hard to notice.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted, ask the average person how chrome got on their PC, they wont know...
- jqt 8y ago
  I care about my privacy, that's why I don't use Firefox, because the Mozilla Corporation was caught red-handed sending user data to an advertisement company, Cliqz.
  - pleasecalllater 8y ago
    So what do you use instead?
    - jqt 8y ago
      I do use Chrome. I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. I don't trust Google much but I trust them more than I trust a random third party, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
      - bayindirh 8y ago
        > I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. How can you be so sure about that?
        jqt 8y ago
        I can't in the same way I can't be sure the Mozilla Corporation isn't pulling another Cliqz on me. So what's your point?
        close04 8y ago
        The point you made is (simplified) "Chrome is better than Firefox for privacy". Yet you brought nothing to support this beyond "the devil you know is better". Especially since Google is heavily relying on marketing your data to the point where they gather it covertly or force users into privacy breaking situations. Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. Just when you thought you knew the devil. Knowing this guess you'll drop Chrome now, right? [0]-[over 9000] So tell me about this devil you know and how exactly knowing all that still pushes you to believe it's the better option? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18042802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18042802 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252 [3] https://mashable.com/article/google-chrome-69-forced-login/?europe=true#x3cJQ0apvaqo https://mashable.com/article/google-chrome-69-forced-login/?... [4] https://gizmodo.com/google-stores-location-data-even-with-location-history-1828300883 https://gizmodo.com/google-stores-location-data-even-with-lo... [5] https://mashable.com/article/google-android-data-collection-study/?europe=true#4FdC_NSYUOqh https://mashable.com/article/google-android-data-collection-... [6] i can go on but I'm pretty sure a modicum of good will from your side would be enough to get the point.
- jasonvorhe 8y ago
  I care about my privacy and I'm still using Chrome. On a Chromebook and a Pixel device. Speak for yourself.
  - givinguflac 8y ago
    |I care about my privacy I don’t think that means what you think it means.
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  >people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Which browser are you using? I think some people who care about privacy have just been worn down to the point where they've given up and don't necessarily believe they gain much from the inconvenience of avoiding things that work for them. I'm not sure that's totally irrational. Once upon a time, you could tweak your HOSTS file and/or install some basic software, and adopt a few behaviors to get reasonably strong privacy. Now, between all of the data breaches, tracking at the device/ISP/carrier level, nefarious privacy policies (including IRL), business models that depend on collecting, selling, and protecting data, app glut, sophisticated malware and fraud, etc. ad nauseum: it's like a multi-front war to keep your PII. Truth be told, most of us have shockingly less knowledge than we think WRT how much of our data is "out there" and who has access to it. Through this lens, it's understandable that some might care but think it doesn't make a tremendous difference whether they use Chrome or some other thing. Not to say it's hopeless, but at some point certain "precautions" inconvenience us more than they provide any marked improvement in our overall privacy. I'm not even sure which browser to trust more than Chrome anymore. So, I use Chrome for its features, active maintenance, and standards compatibility. EDIT: I'd be curious to know what others are using.
nwellnhof 8y ago
> I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser Chrome was originally based on WebKit and many other open source libraries, and some parts still are. The only major initial investment was V8.
- lunchables 8y ago
  >https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/11/apple-google-nearly-tied-as-top-contributors-to-webkit-as-adoption-expands https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/11/apple-google-near... And that was 6 years ago.
jasonvorhe 8y ago
Chrome doesn't log you in automatically, it just shows your Google account in Chrome if you've already logged in to your account. There's no sync happening.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  When a company tells me where it's going by increasingly "encouraging" certain behaviours as their product matures I take them at their word. Profiles went from optional, to on-by-default but could be disabled via chrome://flags, to on-by-default but could be disabled via command line arg, to cannot be disabled, to logged in by default but not syncing. Where this progression is going and what it's trying to promote is not rocket science.
3xblah 8y ago
I once read that Chrome was created by former Firefox developers. Google is infamous for its code reuse. Many web commentators continually sound the alarm on Google's increasing leverage and control over a variety of "components" or "intrastructure" essential to the www. But controlling the browser is, I think, the ultimate control over the web as users know it. Browsers seem to fall outside the purview of www standards. Are there RFCs that tell people what browsers must or should do? More likely, there are standards that focus on servers and seek to accomodate whatever browsers are doing at the time. The browser can override anything. It can easily modify user intent in subtle, "hidden" ways. It can rewrite "default behaviour" overnight. To give an example, users probably think little of something like the feature known as "Omnibox", if they even know what that is, but this sort of browser "feature" is of enormous value to a company trying to gather information on what users are looking for. Imagine the number of DNS queries this bypasses, redirecting what is typed by the user to a default search engine, conveniently preset to point to a Google server.
endorphone 8y ago
Recall that Chrome was made when IE still had a dominant marketshare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:Usage_Share_of_browsers_(updated_August_2018).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m... IE was stagnating, slow, and extremely vulnerable to malicious behaviors. The net result was that the web became a very hostile place, while Microsoft was pitching various "post web" strategies like WPF. Google had been a big financial supporter of Firefox but not to a degree where they could direct the project or push their own agenda. At the time many viewed Firefox as slow and bloated. So Google made their own thing, and it worked admirably and we might be in a very different world if they didn't. They dramatically improved the state of the art for JavaScript, added intrinsic hostile activity and site blocking, started dramatically accelerating the adoption of technology improvements (by implementing very early proposals, often to much consternation), etc. The web was less dangerous. Google's cash cow was protected because there was less of a draw to go to alternative platforms. That, I think, was their primary intention and it was aligned interests with users. Everyone is happy with the web. And honestly I do think this ad blocking thing is a bit of "fake news" (e.g. it is being grossly misreported). Google is proposing a solution that offers more privacy from the extension, and it seems very similar to what Safari has done (and which is very widely viewed as a great design).
- tyingq 8y ago
  "Google is proposing a solution that offers more privacy from the extension, and it seems very similar to what Safari has done (and which is very widely viewed as a great design)." It would only provide more privacy if ad block extensions go solely with static lists of uris. If they want to retain features like right-click block, or allowing users to customize the list, static blocks don't work. These changes do nothing to inhibit the ability to log/store/etc requests anywhere you want as an extension author. They are only removing the ability to cancel in flight requests. What's your source that the Safari ad blocking approach is viewed as a great design? Everything I look at shows it was a regression in effectiveness. Certainly the various adblock authors weren't thrilled. How well, for example, does it work with YouTube ads?
reacweb 8y ago
IMNSHO, Google's obsession is artificial intelligence. They have build a search engine to prove they were better at understandanding content of web pages. To improve their AI, they need to spy on every aspects of our life. They spy on all our web activity, on our phone contacts, on our mails, on our documents and on our deplacements (waze). The fact that this search engine has generated so much money was an accident. Now, Google fights are: political lobbying to avoid being destroyed for monopolistic behaviour, protect and increase their spying means, improving their AI.

pojzon 8y ago

Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.

pleasecalllater 8y ago
All the I-have-nothing-to-hide people, please publish your bank account, address, SSN, passwords and other information the bank can ask when trying to transfer the money. Yea, I know... so they really have something to hide, right? So why not to start caring about the privacy and start thinking?
- konart 8y ago
  > I-have-nothing-to-hide Not one of them, but I hope you realize that this 'example' is completely off mark. I have nothing to hide if we are talking about that new hifi system I was looking on Amazon, I don't care if google knows what did I have for breakfast, I might even be ok with you knowing my address, but this is fundamentally different from you haveing keys from my apartment or my bank account.
  - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
    I'm not necessarily of this opinion, but his view is that knowing what you had for breakfast and your address is the same as your bank account # or house keys; it's just that people haven't realized this yet. Their argument is that the reason why people say house keys, or bank act # is different is because they are protecting something of value. His argument is what you do on a daily basis is just as valuable you just don't know it yet. The other argument against is "yes my privacy/ daily activity may have 'value', but unlike my bank account or house keys people can't take something from me from knowing it. " That's more up to opinion, but the argument is knowing you so well, someone can take your independence. A bit dystopian, but imagine n years from now, ML is good enough to predict your responses and behaviors to 80+% of things. Companies now use it to effectively get you to make decisions they want. Combinations of timing, placement, location, repetition, persuasion, counter-argument all to produce a desired result, but unlike present day extremely effective and possibly without your awareness. If there is a way to get our wet ware to do it, ML will figure it out. Advertising/Marketing/Sales become a game of Go, where you're the Go board. Best ML wins. We like to think we're fully in control of our decision making facilities, but study after study shows that's mostly an illusion. Our sub-conscience mostly decides for us, and then our brains rationalize this away after the fact. The fear is that by giving away your emotions, your responses, your ocean 5 factor model, your preferences, your habits, and a playground to test all of this in you are potentially giving up your independence at a future time. It's all dystopian, it's not guaranteed, but it pans out as all likely directions and very probable tech.
    - binaryblitz 8y ago
      At a certain point, is that necessarily a bad thing? If the AI knows me so well, it's probably something I would buy/want anyway. If my house starts cooking bacon and eggs in the morning based on it's analysis of me, and there's a 90% chance that's what I want, awesome. A lot of people already do it with driving. On my commute to work every day, I go the way google maps tells me to. Google is effectively controlling traffic patterns, but it's made driving to work faster. I realize it could possibly be used for evil, but by the time we get there, most if not all, of the people reading this will be dead by that point, so we'll never know.
      - neuralRiot 8y ago
        It's not that they know what you want, it's that they make you want it. And that destroys individuality, creativity and the last bit of freedom we still have.
      - craftinator 8y ago
        Because to a company using ML to impart control over your behavior, you are a $. They want to extract value from you, just like every other company, government, etc... If they become really, really good at this, you are going to have a low standard of living (because you are being mined for value), and make noncoherent decisions constantly (you will no longer be rational, nor have a functional personality). To some degree, this has already been happening for decades, since psychologists began formalising advertising into a science. Look at the increasing percentage of lower class families and how diminished their average value is. This isn't caused by time localized events, like a 5 year recession or a housing market bubble. This is the result of extremely fine-tuned and effective advertising, that has caused cultural shifts towards greater and more irrational consumerism. ML allows the advertisers to be much much more effective; they no longer even have to manually understand their market to manipulate it. Again, look at the growing disparity between the richest 1% and the rest of the schmucks. That 1% is soaking up the profits of extremely effective advertising, which the rest of us are paying for.
      - bad_user 8y ago
        To add to what @neuralRiot, the mistake in your thinking is that you're imagining AI as your assistant. But it won't necessarily be your assistant, since you don't actually own it and especially if you're not paying money, you're not the customer. To give an example, imagine if Google Maps took you on an alternative route, not because you'd arrive faster, but because on that route there are ads you need to watch, or because GMaps wants to free the road for some high profile travelers and you're just getting in the way. Waze is already serving commercials while you're driving. And given the weird routes it has taken me on, I now have no idea if Waze's algorithm chooses certain routes because it would be faster, or because it wants me to watch ads, or because it wants to take me off the main road to clear it for others. Companies are already doing evil shit with real consequences. Facebook for example did experiments on manipulating people's feelings. Target figured out a girl is pregnant before her father. Plenty of other examples. It's just that people aren't paying attention.
- chappi42 8y ago
  It needs regulation. In other areas there is also, e.g. cigarettes, alcohol. 'We' don't allow people to e.g. freely consume drugs. The pressure is not (only) on the individual (your: 'start thinking'), The society as a whole has made rules what goes and what not. There are comparable issues with Google and Facebook. Let economic instruments fix the problems. Tax advertisement. Heavily if necessary. If I want to drink a Whisky there is a lot of tax (to 'help with my thinking'..;). The same needs to be done with advertisement, imho.
Krasnol 8y ago
Don't forget the people who had it installed because it was bundled with some other software during installation...
- pleasecalllater 8y ago
  Yea, this is also quite terrifying that many companies trick people to install Chrome while installing their software. Trick - because the option is too often checked by default, and sometimes it's hidden in the text so it's hard to notice.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted, ask the average person how chrome got on their PC, they wont know...
jqt 8y ago
I care about my privacy, that's why I don't use Firefox, because the Mozilla Corporation was caught red-handed sending user data to an advertisement company, Cliqz.
- pleasecalllater 8y ago
  So what do you use instead?
  - jqt 8y ago
    I do use Chrome. I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. I don't trust Google much but I trust them more than I trust a random third party, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
    - bayindirh 8y ago
      > I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know. How can you be so sure about that?
      - jqt 8y ago
        I can't in the same way I can't be sure the Mozilla Corporation isn't pulling another Cliqz on me. So what's your point?
        close04 8y ago
        The point you made is (simplified) "Chrome is better than Firefox for privacy". Yet you brought nothing to support this beyond "the devil you know is better". Especially since Google is heavily relying on marketing your data to the point where they gather it covertly or force users into privacy breaking situations. Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. Just when you thought you knew the devil. Knowing this guess you'll drop Chrome now, right? [0]-[over 9000] So tell me about this devil you know and how exactly knowing all that still pushes you to believe it's the better option? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18042802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18042802 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252 [3] https://mashable.com/article/google-chrome-69-forced-login/?europe=true#x3cJQ0apvaqo https://mashable.com/article/google-chrome-69-forced-login/?... [4] https://gizmodo.com/google-stores-location-data-even-with-location-history-1828300883 https://gizmodo.com/google-stores-location-data-even-with-lo... [5] https://mashable.com/article/google-android-data-collection-study/?europe=true#4FdC_NSYUOqh https://mashable.com/article/google-android-data-collection-... [6] i can go on but I'm pretty sure a modicum of good will from your side would be enough to get the point.
jasonvorhe 8y ago
I care about my privacy and I'm still using Chrome. On a Chromebook and a Pixel device. Speak for yourself.
- givinguflac 8y ago
  |I care about my privacy I don’t think that means what you think it means.
unclebucknasty 8y ago
>people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Which browser are you using? I think some people who care about privacy have just been worn down to the point where they've given up and don't necessarily believe they gain much from the inconvenience of avoiding things that work for them. I'm not sure that's totally irrational. Once upon a time, you could tweak your HOSTS file and/or install some basic software, and adopt a few behaviors to get reasonably strong privacy. Now, between all of the data breaches, tracking at the device/ISP/carrier level, nefarious privacy policies (including IRL), business models that depend on collecting, selling, and protecting data, app glut, sophisticated malware and fraud, etc. ad nauseum: it's like a multi-front war to keep your PII. Truth be told, most of us have shockingly less knowledge than we think WRT how much of our data is "out there" and who has access to it. Through this lens, it's understandable that some might care but think it doesn't make a tremendous difference whether they use Chrome or some other thing. Not to say it's hopeless, but at some point certain "precautions" inconvenience us more than they provide any marked improvement in our overall privacy. I'm not even sure which browser to trust more than Chrome anymore. So, I use Chrome for its features, active maintenance, and standards compatibility. EDIT: I'd be curious to know what others are using.

nwellnhof 8y ago

> I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser Chrome was originally based on WebKit and many other open source libraries, and some parts still are. The only major initial investment was V8.

lunchables 8y ago
>https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/11/apple-google-nearly-tied-as-top-contributors-to-webkit-as-adoption-expands https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/11/apple-google-near... And that was 6 years ago.

jasonvorhe 8y ago

Chrome doesn't log you in automatically, it just shows your Google account in Chrome if you've already logged in to your account. There's no sync happening.

AlexandrB 8y ago
When a company tells me where it's going by increasingly "encouraging" certain behaviours as their product matures I take them at their word. Profiles went from optional, to on-by-default but could be disabled via chrome://flags, to on-by-default but could be disabled via command line arg, to cannot be disabled, to logged in by default but not syncing. Where this progression is going and what it's trying to promote is not rocket science.

3xblah 8y ago

I once read that Chrome was created by former Firefox developers. Google is infamous for its code reuse. Many web commentators continually sound the alarm on Google's increasing leverage and control over a variety of "components" or "intrastructure" essential to the www. But controlling the browser is, I think, the ultimate control over the web as users know it. Browsers seem to fall outside the purview of www standards. Are there RFCs that tell people what browsers must or should do? More likely, there are standards that focus on servers and seek to accomodate whatever browsers are doing at the time. The browser can override anything. It can easily modify user intent in subtle, "hidden" ways. It can rewrite "default behaviour" overnight. To give an example, users probably think little of something like the feature known as "Omnibox", if they even know what that is, but this sort of browser "feature" is of enormous value to a company trying to gather information on what users are looking for. Imagine the number of DNS queries this bypasses, redirecting what is typed by the user to a default search engine, conveniently preset to point to a Google server.

endorphone 8y ago

Recall that Chrome was made when IE still had a dominant marketshare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:Usage_Share_of_browsers_(updated_August_2018).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m... IE was stagnating, slow, and extremely vulnerable to malicious behaviors. The net result was that the web became a very hostile place, while Microsoft was pitching various "post web" strategies like WPF. Google had been a big financial supporter of Firefox but not to a degree where they could direct the project or push their own agenda. At the time many viewed Firefox as slow and bloated. So Google made their own thing, and it worked admirably and we might be in a very different world if they didn't. They dramatically improved the state of the art for JavaScript, added intrinsic hostile activity and site blocking, started dramatically accelerating the adoption of technology improvements (by implementing very early proposals, often to much consternation), etc. The web was less dangerous. Google's cash cow was protected because there was less of a draw to go to alternative platforms. That, I think, was their primary intention and it was aligned interests with users. Everyone is happy with the web. And honestly I do think this ad blocking thing is a bit of "fake news" (e.g. it is being grossly misreported). Google is proposing a solution that offers more privacy from the extension, and it seems very similar to what Safari has done (and which is very widely viewed as a great design).

tyingq 8y ago
"Google is proposing a solution that offers more privacy from the extension, and it seems very similar to what Safari has done (and which is very widely viewed as a great design)." It would only provide more privacy if ad block extensions go solely with static lists of uris. If they want to retain features like right-click block, or allowing users to customize the list, static blocks don't work. These changes do nothing to inhibit the ability to log/store/etc requests anywhere you want as an extension author. They are only removing the ability to cancel in flight requests. What's your source that the Safari ad blocking approach is viewed as a great design? Everything I look at shows it was a regression in effectiveness. Certainly the various adblock authors weren't thrilled. How well, for example, does it work with YouTube ads?

reacweb 8y ago

IMNSHO, Google's obsession is artificial intelligence. They have build a search engine to prove they were better at understandanding content of web pages. To improve their AI, they need to spy on every aspects of our life. They spy on all our web activity, on our phone contacts, on our mails, on our documents and on our deplacements (waze). The fact that this search engine has generated so much money was an accident. Now, Google fights are: political lobbying to avoid being destroyed for monopolistic behaviour, protect and increase their spying means, improving their AI.