3 ms·

I'm glad you ended it with rant, because this is the exact brand of FUD I was referring to. >The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business

I'm glad you ended it with rant, because this is the exact brand of FUD I was referring to. >The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. All of those fonts are freely downloadable. Nothing about them requires you to go through Google (and is in fact impossible due to how webfonts work). Further, do you have ANY evidence that G+ is tracking non-loged in users? Also, I'm pretty sure the privacy policy of... ANY webmail client (save for self or ISP hosted) is going to violate such a policy, and I still find it completely irrelevant in a discussion of Google being dangerous. Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS?

jrockway 15y ago
I heard Google breaks into people's houses at night and steals any spare change the occupants have lying around. This makes sense because Google must maximize shareholder value, and spare change is money for the shareholders. Therefore, this accusation must be true. Next week: proof why Google enriches uranium and sells it to terrorists trying to build a dirty bomb. One reason: they would get money from doing so! Man that's evil!
huhtenberg 15y ago
> All of those fonts are freely downloadable In exactly one format. And in order for them to be properly served to different browsers, they need to come in at least 3 other formats. Doing offline conversion yields fonts that look noticeably different from those served by Google, so for all practical intents and purposes having these fonts available for download is useless. > Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS? They are dangerous because the other guy didn't read the TOS. I read them and declined.