> Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no choice but to use

> Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no choice but to use the built-in rendering engine) has significant security benefits; this is debatable, but ultimately, most don’t care, simply because browsers are means to information, not ends. I care about being able to install an alternative browser engine on my devices. I think the reason we're today debating the risks of large social networks and the tech titans in general is that there were finally enough voices of concern that we could no longer be ignored. That had to start somewhere, and it did. It started with a smaller group who have been raising concerns about these companies centralizing user data and surveilling on their users for years. So dismissing a potential future battlefield (browser consolidation versus browser engine choice) seems an echo of those who dismissed concerns about social network overreach five years ago. That said, I personally favor promoting alternatives and educating people about those alternatives. I don't use Facebook and yet I am able to easily communicate with friends and family. Do I want to destroy or break-up Facebook? Meh, not really. I'm fine with Facebook simply not being a part of my life. That includes blocking its domains via DNS. Improving the ability for laypeople to fully block the various surveillance tools of these firms is where I'd like to see more effort spent, not in application of government power. Looping back to the point above, the tough one right now is mobile: You either choose the surveillance apparatus called Android or the walled garden called iOS. There are some fringe options, among which Purism 5 looks particularly promising.