4 ms·
Eventually they just want to whitelist the "good" sites and make it harder to access small independent sites, further centralizing the web and getting more tool
by hkai 8y ago
Eventually they just want to whitelist the "good" sites and make it harder to access small independent sites, further centralizing the web and getting more tools to censor content.
Imagine that they would make it hard to access a small competitor to Gmail or restrict a website that has news they don't like.
- mrhappyunhappy 8y agoIntroducing “trusted content providers”. Default opt in, opt out only if you acknowledge you’ll be exposed to phishing (red scary screen).
- sh87 8y agoOutright restricting would seem unlikely given the anti-trust scene they are having to put up against. But, I can totally imagine them introducing an extra step under the garb of "protecting" users like a dialog, a popup coupled with a red banner on the URL is enough to discourage significant number of people from visiting the target website.
- api 8y agoYou don't have to outright restrict. Just adding a little bit of friction will keep 90% of users away and will completely destroy adoption for any independent business. I really think it's time to drop Chrome and to campaign for others to drop Chrome. I'm sticking with either Safari (on my Mac) or Firefox.
- tyingq 8y agoAnyone remember "AOL keywords"? You would pay AOL to make your content discoverable. And some keywords were reserved only for AOL use.