4 ms·
There's only one sane outcome of the current shifts in privacy that I can see. Something like FLoC, with - The data stored-in and served-by a neutral, not-for
by ethbr0 4y ago
There's only one sane outcome of the current shifts in privacy that I can see.
Something like FLoC, with
- The data stored-in and served-by a neutral, not-for-profit, regulated entity
- With user primacy and control of their own data (opt-out, wipe, request copy, etc)
You're never going to drag tracking out of Chrome, because Google is revenue addicted at this point. So at least you can keep it out of Google's control.
- irrational 4y agoOr, just use Firefox. It works just as well as chrome, in my experience.
- ethbr0 4y agoThat's not a scalable solution for people who are not me.
- cmeacham98 4y agoWhy not? Firefox is freely available and works on (almost) every platform Chrome does.
- ethbr0 4y agoBecause Mozilla doesn't have USD$250b+ in annual revenue, or ownership of the top web destinations, with which to push Firefox.
- cmeacham98 4y agoPeople who care about tracking will do the research and pick other browsers, people who don't will use Chrome.
- ethbr0 4y agoYes. And I care about decreasing tracking for people who don't care about being tracked, because that's most of the world.
- cmeacham98 4y agoWhy?
- ethbr0 4y agoEmpathy.
- pessimizer 4y agoIf we can't drag tracking out of Chrome because Google won't agree, why would we think they'd agree to keeping anything "out of Google's control"? If our decision-making hinges on what Google would agree to, we might as well wait for Google to announce what they're going to do anyway.
- ethbr0 4y agoBecause one of the few things more powerful than Google is national governments, and their mutual mistrust of each other.
- pessimizer 4y agoThen we can use government to drag tracking out of Chrome.