4 ms·
Any new feature that is added to the user agent should serve or empower said user — not any other parties, including the browser maker and the advertisers. That
by grishka 6y ago
Any new feature that is added to the user agent should serve or empower said user — not any other parties, including the browser maker and the advertisers. That simple.
- anoncake 6y agoAnd that's why an ad company should not be allowed to also make browsers.
- fartcannon 6y agoWe can all stop using Chrome. That'd help.
- grishka 6y agoThis kind of strategy has never ever worked because the majority of the world's population just accepts whatever is thrown at them without questioning.
- anoncake 6y agoSure. So would divine intervention. Regulation is more realistic.
- contravariant 6y agoSome well designed regulation would be nice. But just on the off chance we should probably also try frying tofu and sending it to the mozilla foundation, because we might need some divine intervention after all.
- xxpor 6y agoThat's the thing: Chrome did empower users, that's why everyone uses it! Users just want things to work, and Chrome worked better than IE and FF at the time. FF didn't get multi-process support for a decade after Chrome had it. Did this also serve Google's purposes? Of course. But that's how life works. It's a win-win for Google. Everyone complains about the evils of Google, but revealed preferences show that focusing on what people actually care about has substantial value. It's like no one follows what people say about cookie popups. Does your average non-tech user praise the EU for adding the popups and allowing opt outs? Of course not. They complain about these stupid fucking popups they have to click through on every site now!