18 ms·
And even if, is that a problem? We can use their browser for free and they do a pretty good job at not tracking anyone for huge money. What’s the problem with t
by rad_gruchalski 5y ago
And even if, is that a problem? We can use their browser for free and they do a pretty good job at not tracking anyone for huge money. What’s the problem with them having some income?
- Ajedi32 5y agoIt's one thing to just not promote a search engine to your users. That I could understand. It's another thing entirely to intentionally override the user's preference and lie to them about why you're doing it. (Assuming they are actually lying and there isn't some sort of bizarre legal reason why they really do have to do things this way.)
- Barrin92 5y agoThere is none, however there's a problem with not communicating that in plain English, i.e. "we sell the spots on our preferred search engine list to generate revenue, as of now a few companies have not agreed to those terms and are being removed". For good reasons the general convention is to render sponsorships and ads visible.
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoI agree that this would have been a better way to frame it, if that is what happened here.