3 ms·

How long will Chrome hold out as a neutral pipe for websites? Does anyone here think it's unthinkable that Google would block parler.com on Chrome? It seemed

How long will Chrome hold out as a neutral pipe for websites? Does anyone here think it's unthinkable that Google would block parler.com on Chrome? It seemed unthinkable a couple years ago, but at this point I would put even money on Chrome having a "radical" website blacklist within a year.

0x53 6y ago
Interesting thought. I have noticed that recently Chrome has started being more aggressive on blocking sites that it considers harmful/scams.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
But that wouldn't affect forks such as Brave, would it? Or maybe they would engineer in some way to force the forks to use a Google blacklist or else....
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  If a website isn't accessible on Chrome, Edge, or Firefox, it's effectively deplatformed. It's a tiny fraction of the population who even knows HOW to sideload an app.
jimbob45 6y ago
Chrome is open source. It would just get forked.
wvenable 6y ago
Google one company but the different parts have different roles. With Google Play, they're the publisher. Google doesn't need to block websites because they have nothing to do with them.
- daenz 6y ago
  >Google doesn't need to block websites because they have nothing to do with them https://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/imageapi/2014/03/espnmalware-100257479-orig.jpg https://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/imageapi/20...
- malwarebytess 6y ago
  Once one take more than a surface level look at what you have said one realize it doesn't actually add up. Google blocks websites for all kinds of reasons, a whole lot in fact. It's especially evident if one has been using google since the beginning.
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
I give it 6 months to a year until Chrome implements a "harmful content" page you'll have to click through to get to these sites.
- casefields 6y ago
  They already do that for torrent websites. It's easy to imagine the jump to politically disliked opinions. It's McCarthyism and the red scare all over again except the party enforcing it has switched.

0x53 6y ago

Interesting thought. I have noticed that recently Chrome has started being more aggressive on blocking sites that it considers harmful/scams.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago

But that wouldn't affect forks such as Brave, would it? Or maybe they would engineer in some way to force the forks to use a Google blacklist or else....

bpodgursky 6y ago
If a website isn't accessible on Chrome, Edge, or Firefox, it's effectively deplatformed. It's a tiny fraction of the population who even knows HOW to sideload an app.

jimbob45 6y ago

Chrome is open source. It would just get forked.

wvenable 6y ago

Google one company but the different parts have different roles. With Google Play, they're the publisher. Google doesn't need to block websites because they have nothing to do with them.

daenz 6y ago
>Google doesn't need to block websites because they have nothing to do with them https://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/imageapi/2014/03/espnmalware-100257479-orig.jpg https://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/imageapi/20...
malwarebytess 6y ago
Once one take more than a surface level look at what you have said one realize it doesn't actually add up. Google blocks websites for all kinds of reasons, a whole lot in fact. It's especially evident if one has been using google since the beginning.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

I give it 6 months to a year until Chrome implements a "harmful content" page you'll have to click through to get to these sites.

casefields 6y ago
They already do that for torrent websites. It's easy to imagine the jump to politically disliked opinions. It's McCarthyism and the red scare all over again except the party enforcing it has switched.