5 ms·

> So rather than be alarmist and use this to feed into the tired narrative that "Google is killing ad blockers because it's an advertising company" That’s not

> So rather than be alarmist and use this to feed into the tired narrative that "Google is killing ad blockers because it's an advertising company" That’s not alarmist, it’s the obvious truth. As a user I should have complete control over what runs on my machine. I don’t need Google “protecting” me (by breaking ad blockers). Google is the single most destructive force in the tech industry today. Very much like Microsoft in the 90s. We should resist their attempts to embrace, extend, extinguish and we should be insulted that they couch these changes in marketing speak that pretends to be pro-user when it’s the exact opposite.

cletus 7y ago
> As a user I should have complete control over what runs on my machine. You do. By running Firefox. This level of control might be useful to you but it's not to most users. As much as power users chafe against things like the App Store, for example, this is clearly a win for most users. Limiting what a malicious extension could do is very much the same because I can guarantee you there are scams to get users to install malicious extensions. How Firefox should respond here is to make ad-blocking a first party solution. In that Firefox itself is responsible for the blocking and all extension writers are responsible for are the rules. At that point you will have a solid story that FF is putting the user first.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  So it’s safe to say that people are not being alarmist about Google and should switch to Firefox. I don’t think it’s “clear” at all that most users benefit from monopolistic app store practices. I think the giant tech companies do though.
  - cletus 7y ago
    "Should"? I wouldn't go that far. I will say however that people are the uproar is somewhat overblown for three simple reasons: 1. Google wants people to use Chrome. It's clearly of benefit to them (and, for the most part, to users, at least for now); 2. Alternatives exist; and 3. Switching to an alternative is essentially trivial. This just isn't a Microsoft Windows monopoly situation.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  Agreed - if you support a user base on chrome folks DO install bogus extensions DESPITE all the guard rails
- bambax 7y ago
  > How Firefox should respond here is to make ad-blocking a first party solution. Okay, yes -- that would be an interesting move. Not sure they can afford it but it would be great.
- Endy 7y ago
  Beacon.enabled default is true, and the password manager defaults to sending passwords to a remote server. MozCo is not user friendly. Their main focus is on keeping the Google money flowing.
cletus 7y ago
> it’s the obvious truth. Only to those who are woefully ignorant of how any large company work and are unable or unwilling to see passed their own desires. But let me ask you this, even if we stipulate it's 100% true, how does that help? What does that accomplish? You've simply stated an opinion that those who agree with you will cheer for (changing nothing) and those who disagree with you won't change (also changing nothing). People have this overly simplistic view of how large companies work and ascribe malice to Google in particular for what's essentially just chaos. And I say this as a Xoogler. There are conflicting forces in Google that include, but are not limited to: 1. Protecting the ad revenue business Google is utterly dependent on; and 2. Promoting user privacy and benefits because that's what gets users to keep using your products. Even (1) comes from a wide variety of motivations such as: - Making more money; - The belief that ad-supported models are the only model that works so advertising is an absolute necessity to providing services on the Web. > I don’t need Google “protecting” me And again, you seem to be deliberately missing the point here because you say "I" a lot. What about your parents? Or grandparents? Do they need "complete control" over their machines? And consider for a second the scenario where you're not giving them tech support. This "complete control" is exactly what enables botnets (many of them anyway), fraud, theft, DDoS attacks and so on.

cletus 7y ago

> As a user I should have complete control over what runs on my machine. You do. By running Firefox. This level of control might be useful to you but it's not to most users. As much as power users chafe against things like the App Store, for example, this is clearly a win for most users. Limiting what a malicious extension could do is very much the same because I can guarantee you there are scams to get users to install malicious extensions. How Firefox should respond here is to make ad-blocking a first party solution. In that Firefox itself is responsible for the blocking and all extension writers are responsible for are the rules. At that point you will have a solid story that FF is putting the user first.

malvosenior 7y ago
So it’s safe to say that people are not being alarmist about Google and should switch to Firefox. I don’t think it’s “clear” at all that most users benefit from monopolistic app store practices. I think the giant tech companies do though.
- cletus 7y ago
  "Should"? I wouldn't go that far. I will say however that people are the uproar is somewhat overblown for three simple reasons: 1. Google wants people to use Chrome. It's clearly of benefit to them (and, for the most part, to users, at least for now); 2. Alternatives exist; and 3. Switching to an alternative is essentially trivial. This just isn't a Microsoft Windows monopoly situation.
privateSFacct 7y ago
Agreed - if you support a user base on chrome folks DO install bogus extensions DESPITE all the guard rails
bambax 7y ago
> How Firefox should respond here is to make ad-blocking a first party solution. Okay, yes -- that would be an interesting move. Not sure they can afford it but it would be great.
Endy 7y ago
Beacon.enabled default is true, and the password manager defaults to sending passwords to a remote server. MozCo is not user friendly. Their main focus is on keeping the Google money flowing.

cletus 7y ago

> it’s the obvious truth. Only to those who are woefully ignorant of how any large company work and are unable or unwilling to see passed their own desires. But let me ask you this, even if we stipulate it's 100% true, how does that help? What does that accomplish? You've simply stated an opinion that those who agree with you will cheer for (changing nothing) and those who disagree with you won't change (also changing nothing). People have this overly simplistic view of how large companies work and ascribe malice to Google in particular for what's essentially just chaos. And I say this as a Xoogler. There are conflicting forces in Google that include, but are not limited to: 1. Protecting the ad revenue business Google is utterly dependent on; and 2. Promoting user privacy and benefits because that's what gets users to keep using your products. Even (1) comes from a wide variety of motivations such as: - Making more money; - The belief that ad-supported models are the only model that works so advertising is an absolute necessity to providing services on the Web. > I don’t need Google “protecting” me And again, you seem to be deliberately missing the point here because you say "I" a lot. What about your parents? Or grandparents? Do they need "complete control" over their machines? And consider for a second the scenario where you're not giving them tech support. This "complete control" is exactly what enables botnets (many of them anyway), fraud, theft, DDoS attacks and so on.