6 ms·

This appears to be the same as this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 Top comment on that one was:

This appears to be the same as this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227 Top comment on that one was: Key actionable info: to fix this, go to this URL: chrome://settings/adPrivacy and turn off the toggles on each of the three subpages. Alternatively, go to this URL https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/ to fix this permanently.

jwr 3y ago
If enough people switch these settings off, Google will just re-enable them "accidentally" during the next auto-update. Or hide them altogether. This is their business model. They didn't create Chrome out of the goodness of their hearts: it was created to impose their rules on the internet. And since their business model relies on tracking people, that is what they will do. Refusing by deleting Chrome is the only way to oppose this. Incidentally, I think people working on these features should be ashamed.
- dspillett 3y ago
  It already “accidentally” enables two of them when you are prompted to enable the new one and you say no…
- cesarb 3y ago
  > They didn't create Chrome out of the goodness of their hearts: it was created to impose their rules on the internet. IIRC, it's the opposite: Chrome was created to prevent other browser manufacturers (in particular, Microsoft) from imposing their rules on the Internet in a way which affected Google websites.
  - justin_oaks 3y ago
    So another instance of "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." I'm not fan of seeing which tech giant wins the privilege of imposing their will on me.
  - jwr 3y ago
    It's the same thing. Google needs to track users, and anything that prevents them from tracking users is a problem. Their rules (that they want to impose) are that user information is advertising material, to be tracked, profiled, processed and sold. They've done a very successful job of masquerading as a cool hip tech company, even coining the totally ridiculous (given the context) "don't be evil" saying.
bjackman 3y ago
I use Chrome at work and Firefox on personal devices (including my Android phone). As a heavy user of both browsers, as far as I can see there is really no downside to Firefox. In fact, even though presumably there are way more engineers working on Chrome than on Firefox, I guess most of Chrome's engineering effort goes towards benefitting advertisers, not users. While Chrome seems entirely stagnant since I adopted it 4 years ago, Firefox gets a steady trickle of improvements and fixes. So a huge +1 to the last point. Firefox rules.
- tasn 3y ago
  I use Firefox on both Android and desktop. It's much better in many ways, and I love it. I do get compatibility issues sometimes, but I'm unsure whether it's because of all of the add-ons I use, or websites being buggy with Firefox.
  - atoav 3y ago
    or because people develope for chrome and skip testing on other browsers.
  - nathansherburn 3y ago
    I suspect it's your add-ons. I've been using Firefox mobile for years and I don't think I've ever had a site that worked better in Chrome. Caveats: Sometimes launching apps from the browser only works in Chrome and some demos of bleeding edge experimental Chrome features obviously don't work in Firefox.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      There are definitely sites that don't work in Firefox, although they are pretty far and few between. Mailgun is one of the worst offenders. when I mentioned to their support that auth among other things was broken in Firefox, their response was "use chrome"
      - djbusby 3y ago
jojobas 3y ago
>Key actionable info: don't use Chrome. FTFY
screamingninja 3y ago
> Until you can't. The Chrome team routinely remove options from settings, usually keep them for a few months until there's no way of changing them.
MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> turn off the toggles on each of the three subpages. I'm trying to think, are there any downsides to this other than "you won't get custom ads catered to you"? Like Google can see you requested this off and most of us are logged into a Google user account attached to Chrome. I wonder if they can "behind the scenes" label users who don't let them serve them as customized ads in a "less good" bucket? Too much of a stretch/conspiracy theory? Deny us features? Just spitballing...
yrro 3y ago
Interestingly all three of those options were already disabled for me. I don't recall setting any of them myself. I'll check back in a few weeks time to check whether Google has sneakily enabled them without my intervention...
thefourthchime 3y ago
A quick googling says Firefox makes most of its money by making Google the default search. While I'm not suggesting they are doing the same, it does make me feel they are aligned as a business. Apple is the only tech company I know that's primarily funded by customers paying for a product directly. That's why I use Safari.
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  True, and Safari is my default browser too. But, IIRC Google pays Apple >30x what it pays Mozilla for keeping their search engine as a default. https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-15-billion-to-remain-default-safari-search-engine-in-2021/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...
  - thefourthchime 3y ago
    Good point, That said I think Firefox is a little more dependent on that revenue than Apple.
    - rpastuszak 3y ago
      Yup, of course
- bad_user 3y ago
  Another commenter already said it, but given that Google pays Apple $20 billion annually for the default search engine, it's accurate to say that Safari's development is entirely funded by Google. That Apple has alternative sources of revenue are irrelevant for Safari's present and future. Just to give an example — both Firefox and Safari block third-party cookies, which has an impact on Google's tracking, but have you noticed that neither of them block ads by default? They couldn't even if they wanted to, given it has a direct impact on their cash cow. And Safari's ad-blocking capabilities is what inspired Chrome's limitations from Manifest v3, the latter being more capable, actually. The more important question is: What happens to Safari if Google's payouts to Apple stop? And there's no good answer.

jwr 3y ago

If enough people switch these settings off, Google will just re-enable them "accidentally" during the next auto-update. Or hide them altogether. This is their business model. They didn't create Chrome out of the goodness of their hearts: it was created to impose their rules on the internet. And since their business model relies on tracking people, that is what they will do. Refusing by deleting Chrome is the only way to oppose this. Incidentally, I think people working on these features should be ashamed.

dspillett 3y ago
It already “accidentally” enables two of them when you are prompted to enable the new one and you say no…
cesarb 3y ago
> They didn't create Chrome out of the goodness of their hearts: it was created to impose their rules on the internet. IIRC, it's the opposite: Chrome was created to prevent other browser manufacturers (in particular, Microsoft) from imposing their rules on the Internet in a way which affected Google websites.
- justin_oaks 3y ago
  So another instance of "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." I'm not fan of seeing which tech giant wins the privilege of imposing their will on me.
- jwr 3y ago
  It's the same thing. Google needs to track users, and anything that prevents them from tracking users is a problem. Their rules (that they want to impose) are that user information is advertising material, to be tracked, profiled, processed and sold. They've done a very successful job of masquerading as a cool hip tech company, even coining the totally ridiculous (given the context) "don't be evil" saying.

bjackman 3y ago

I use Chrome at work and Firefox on personal devices (including my Android phone). As a heavy user of both browsers, as far as I can see there is really no downside to Firefox. In fact, even though presumably there are way more engineers working on Chrome than on Firefox, I guess most of Chrome's engineering effort goes towards benefitting advertisers, not users. While Chrome seems entirely stagnant since I adopted it 4 years ago, Firefox gets a steady trickle of improvements and fixes. So a huge +1 to the last point. Firefox rules.

tasn 3y ago
I use Firefox on both Android and desktop. It's much better in many ways, and I love it. I do get compatibility issues sometimes, but I'm unsure whether it's because of all of the add-ons I use, or websites being buggy with Firefox.
- atoav 3y ago
  or because people develope for chrome and skip testing on other browsers.
- nathansherburn 3y ago
  I suspect it's your add-ons. I've been using Firefox mobile for years and I don't think I've ever had a site that worked better in Chrome. Caveats: Sometimes launching apps from the browser only works in Chrome and some demos of bleeding edge experimental Chrome features obviously don't work in Firefox.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    There are definitely sites that don't work in Firefox, although they are pretty far and few between. Mailgun is one of the worst offenders. when I mentioned to their support that auth among other things was broken in Firefox, their response was "use chrome"
    - djbusby 3y ago

jojobas 3y ago

>Key actionable info: don't use Chrome. FTFY

screamingninja 3y ago

> Until you can't. The Chrome team routinely remove options from settings, usually keep them for a few months until there's no way of changing them.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago

> turn off the toggles on each of the three subpages. I'm trying to think, are there any downsides to this other than "you won't get custom ads catered to you"? Like Google can see you requested this off and most of us are logged into a Google user account attached to Chrome. I wonder if they can "behind the scenes" label users who don't let them serve them as customized ads in a "less good" bucket? Too much of a stretch/conspiracy theory? Deny us features? Just spitballing...

yrro 3y ago

Interestingly all three of those options were already disabled for me. I don't recall setting any of them myself. I'll check back in a few weeks time to check whether Google has sneakily enabled them without my intervention...

thefourthchime 3y ago

A quick googling says Firefox makes most of its money by making Google the default search. While I'm not suggesting they are doing the same, it does make me feel they are aligned as a business. Apple is the only tech company I know that's primarily funded by customers paying for a product directly. That's why I use Safari.

rpastuszak 3y ago
True, and Safari is my default browser too. But, IIRC Google pays Apple >30x what it pays Mozilla for keeping their search engine as a default. https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-15-billion-to-remain-default-safari-search-engine-in-2021/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...
- thefourthchime 3y ago
  Good point, That said I think Firefox is a little more dependent on that revenue than Apple.
  - rpastuszak 3y ago
    Yup, of course
bad_user 3y ago
Another commenter already said it, but given that Google pays Apple $20 billion annually for the default search engine, it's accurate to say that Safari's development is entirely funded by Google. That Apple has alternative sources of revenue are irrelevant for Safari's present and future. Just to give an example — both Firefox and Safari block third-party cookies, which has an impact on Google's tracking, but have you noticed that neither of them block ads by default? They couldn't even if they wanted to, given it has a direct impact on their cash cow. And Safari's ad-blocking capabilities is what inspired Chrome's limitations from Manifest v3, the latter being more capable, actually. The more important question is: What happens to Safari if Google's payouts to Apple stop? And there's no good answer.