5 ms·
Contra Chrome: How Google's browser became a threat to privacy and democracy
- rob74 2y ago(2022) ...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well without Chrome.
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoLet's be honest here, latest developments show that free speech and elections are the biggest threat to democracy.
- rob74 2y agoFree speech? Or free lying?
- contravariant 2y agoYou mean we should have no free speech or elections to ensure democracy?
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoThat would be the safest way if we don't want Trump or Putin propaganda to win.
- Existing4190 2y agoI see what you did there.
- wave-function 2y agoSure — as my friend likes to say, "Democracy is the rule of the democrats". Recent developments have proven him right.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoIt's the paradox of tolerance or whatever, we're seeing that free speech and open elections have allowed the intolerant / autocrats to take over and take away those liberties, which implies that in order to have stopped them, they shouldn't have had those rights. One point of concern is that the idea of free speech has been used by foreign influences to change the opinions of people over the years. Anyway, counterpoint, unless there was voter fraud etc, democracy allows people to vote against democracy, so if that is the will of the majority, so it goes. Of course, one could argue it wasn't the will of the majority but of a vocal minority, which is the other problem with democracy.
- miroljub 2y agoMany people in the "Western Civilization" seem to agree with that stance. Sad but true.
- aucisson_masque 2y agoDemocracy rely on people being able to vote for those who best represent their interest. when company sell people's profile and allow political parties to target them with personalized advertisement, When journalists are allowed to be completely biased that no one trust them anymore, When fake news are allowed to be spread across social networks without any obstacle, You remove people's right to make an educated vote on who is best going to represent their interest. So yeah chrome, Google and other data harvester are part of the problem with some social network and the unregulation of such an important democracy tool that is journalism.
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoI agree, in the current climate a normal person could never be expected to make the correct choice on what their best interests are. To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here.
- ethbr1 2y ago> To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here. By providing them better information.
- pitkali 2y agoRampant misinformation certainly makes it harder to figure things out, but I disagree that it somehow removes people's right to vote for what's best for them or making an educated vote. I don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful. Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.
- xyzal 2y agoFree speech does not mean you should be able to spread lies without consequence
- immibis 2y agoEr, actually it does mean that.
- monkey_monkey 2y agoNo, free speech means you can spread lies, it implies nothing about being immune to consequences.
- immibis 2y agoThe first amendment makes you immune to government consequences, but free speech in general makes you immune to consequences in general. If a really bad thing is imposed on me when I do X, then I'm not free to do X. Otherwise we'd all have the right of free bank robbing (despite going to jail).
- monkey_monkey 2y agoFree speech does not make you immune to consequences. Of course you're free to do X, you just have to decide whether or not to pay the price of the consequence. We can rob banks, we just have to decide whether or not it's worth paying the price of being caught and going to prison. I literally have no idea how you've come up with such a crazy take on things.
- immibis 2y agoSo I'm free to rob banks, I just have to decide whether or not to pay the price of the consequence. This country has freedom of bank robbing.
- Xelbair 2y agowhy do you think that unregulated social networks are a threat? why not all social networks? Frankly being served content at whim of company optimizing profits is as bad. In best case it is a feed optimized to extract as much value from you, while serving you content from bubble that entrenches your beliefs. In worst case scenario - company is politically motivated in similar vein to lobbying and just pushes views that fit their agenda. Regulated(censored in opinion of some) or not - the sentiment in society exists, you just hide it from policymakers. It will spread slower, but it will fester and can explode and catch society unaware. Encrypted chats exists, and in worst case people can just talk when they meet up. Honestly i find all the pushes for censorship to be as bad as loss of democracy - in fact, they are one and the same if you can say only approved things. It is even harder to understand why would you push for that if you come from a country that did suffer from censorship in the past. I personally didn't experience it, but my parents did - and the nightmare stories live on in my generation. Lets not lie to ourselves - 'regulated', 'hate speech' and other such phrases are doublethink words for 'censorship that we like'. and the problem with social media runs deeper than just 'regulation' - it is an inherent conflict of interests between social media corporation itself and society - the goals of both do not align at all. and before anyone starts defending this approach - think what happens when your worst enemy gets the same powers you give yourself. to give example - DOGE works with such powers because one of previous Democract administration created such agency with such overreaching powers.
- miroljub 2y agoYou used the wrong term. In Germany, they call it "Unsere Demokratie (tm)", which may be tranlated to "Our Democracy (tm)". You know, it's not a democracy for everyone, it's just a democracy for a small group op people in power with correct opinions and a monopoly on state media. And indeed, social media, free speech, even elections, not all elections, but elections where people vote for a wrong party, are a threat to Our Democracy(tm).
- rob74 2y agoOk, I think I know who you voted for in the last election... Yeah, sure, you could argue that it's not democratic to keep extreme parties out of power, but there are multiple examples across history of parties coming to power democratically and then destroying democracy from within - it happened in Germany in 1933, in Russia, in Hungary, and it's currently happening in the United States. How to prevent this phenomenon (assuming that you want to prevent it, which of course the people profiting from it don't - see JD Vance's speech at the Munich security conference) is a controversial topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy).
- miroljub 2y ago> Ok, I think I know who you voted for in the last election... No, you don't ;) Anyways, it's not only about Germany. It's the whole Europe. The establishment uses tricks, fraud, and deception to stay in power despite diminishing support and introduce policies opposed to the majority will of the people. In Germany, one party was prevented getting into the parliament by theft. In Romania, the election was annulled, and the leading candidate prevented to candidate because he was the wrong one. In Moldova, the election was manipulated by the government deciding which diaspora has the right to vote, and which not. In Slovakia, the elected president got shot for the wrong politics. In the Ukraine, president refuses to organize an election or transfer the power to the Head of Parliament, as the constitution requires, since he's a good guy. France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, everywhere the same or similar story. JD Vance was right. It's not democracy and not free speech and not freedom, when one group op people have the power to decide about election results, and no real opposition is allowed. And the party you think I voted for is getting bigger and bigger, not because they offer any solution. They don't. It's because the ruling parties keep pushing policies and laws that suit only a small minority, and which a majority of people oppose. It's the current (and future) German government that is bringing us closer to 1933. You can't blame an opposition for that.
- Tistron 2y agoI am so ready to jump back to Firefox, and yet, still here in 2025, I had to go into about:config and fiddle to have it help me autofill CC details, and it doesn't seem like it will remember the CVV for me, unlike chrome. And about:config isn't available on the mobile version, so I can't get that one to auto-fill any CC fields. So, given my choice of using Fx and having to remember my CC-details or take out my cred every time I buy something online, or use Chrome and have things just work smoothly, I'm sad to say that I'll stick with Chrome for now. I don't understand why they can't just make this existing feature work for everyone (it's somehow locked to certain countries that doesn't include Sweden). And if you think CC info is too sensitive to be remembered by the browser, I consider it a lot less sensitive than many of my passwords which I let it remember. I am assuming they know something about how to store this stuff in a secure way. And residing in the EU I can't even use my CC at places that haven't implemented 2FA for credit cards, like e.g. godaddy last I checked. I need to sign every transaction with my electronic bank id. Are there other options out there for Browsers that aren't Fx or Chrome? Which one is actually good (technically as well as ethically)?
- 1oooqooq 2y agoff mobile is garbage. not a single contributor uses it. either get the 'beta' one from the store or the fennec one from fdroid, if you want the real Firefox on Android experience. it's about time the community abandon Mozilla... so many easy to fix screw ups
- SomeHacker44 2y agoI use FF as my main driver on Android (phone and tablet) without problems...???
- 1oooqooq 2y agoenjoy no access to most useful settings, limited extension availability for no good technical reason, no extension cloud sync, all the things the comment i replied to mentioned, etc
- 2y ago
- lima 2y agoIt's impossible to read this without an awful lot of scrolling, even zoomed out...
- dwighttk 2y agoWorks fine on my phone
- hello_computer 2y agoThe fundamental problem is that the browser is too complicated, and thus a natural monopoly. Severing Chrome from Google is simply to pass the peasant-beating stick to Apple. The solution is to cut browser functionality down to a size that more companies (or even individuals) can manage. Even though it’s open-source, googzilla (Google + their “nonprofit” antitrust insurance policy) adds hostilities faster than volunteers can remove them. Things only got this bad because Google has so much power over your visibility on the web. If they say “jump!”, most people are going to respond, “how high?”
- fifticon 2y agoit is a mega-OS, an application forming an OS on top of the actual OS, and dwarfing said OS. It's like our original OS'ses now form a sort of BIOS :-/, necessary evils to host the 'browser OS'. It is what MS feared in the 1990s.
- ethbr1 2y agoAnyone who didn't see the browser becoming a VM by the early 00s had their head in the sand.
- immibis 2y agoThe more fundamental problem is that the browser became too complicated because there was only one of them and they only had to consider themselves when adding features. Exactly like IE before it, but even more extreme. In IE's case, websites avoided IE extensions because they only worked on IE, even when it was the dominant browser.
- jasode 2y ago>The solution is to cut browser functionality down to a size that more companies (or even individuals) can manage. Removing features from browsers isn't a realistic "solution" if the end result is a "minimal browser" that normal users don't want to use. There are many simpler/minimalist web browsers: https://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+open+source+browser https://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+open+source+brows... The common issue with all of them is "some websites don't work with it". This means the minimalist browsers create a tiny self-selected group of hardcore technically savvy users because they are they only ones who are willing to put up with random incompatibilities. Whatever <X features> you want to hypothetically remove from browsers such that an individual coder can "hold the smaller source code all in their head" -- will create a limited and more "broken" browser from the perspective of normal mainstream web surfers.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoIf you think someone can only have a good vote if they have a good media diet then you are the threat to democracy.
- immibis 2y agoExplain how someone with a bad media diet can have a good vote.
- 2malaq 2y agoExplain who decides what a good media diet is.
- ethbr1 2y agoReality.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoPlease share how you derive prescriptive statements from descriptive statements alone.
- Lanolderen 2y agoMy immediate thought is who decides what a good media diet is if we were to fix it, but anyway.. You don't have to agree with what you watch. Sure, propaganda immunity does not exist but I'm more mellow in my beliefs because I know I'm getting into echochambers. Even people under regimes with media consisting of 100% propaganda can see the real picture. of course at that point you don't have a good vote because you'll end up in a camp but that has little to do with media diet.
- rpastuszak 2y agoThe comparison to two way mirrors is apt, and I used the same one when talking about social widgets used for mass data collection/ behavioural targeting. https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/xitterpng-privacy-friendly-embeds-and-one-way-mirrors/ https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/xitterpng-privacy-friendly-... Come to think of it, Chrome is not much different from a xitter embed circumventing the third party cookie blocking rules.
- dominicrose 2y agoThere was a time when e-commerce was an enjoyable experience from a customer perspective. OK price for OK brands, no delivery issue, no need to contact the after-sales service and if there was a need for it they would do an OK job. Now everything feels fake and dysfunctional, from the brand names, products and marketing that seem to have been created from thin air 2 days ago, to bad delivery service of refusal to refund after an issue. Some companies force you into subscriptions. Some companies let you sell you stuff to others and don't give you the money afterwards. I stopped buying anything online. The only thing I pay for is the internet access itself. I'm not sure this hurts Google enough though.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoI mean Amazon was known for refunding almost anything cash wise and not inconveniencing you, selling goods way lower. I guess they played us all. Now I am lucky if Amazons cheaper.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoCompared to earlier years, Amazon has gotten much easier to get a refund for since almost everything I buy clearly says “Free Returns”, and all I have to do is drop it off at a local UPS Store, Kohls, Whole Foods, etc. They do try to trick you into accepting Amazon credit instead of cash refund though.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoThat's definitely true and nice! I can't deny that, its just, there's a lot of counterfeit items and weird issues on Amazon these days. I guess I miss when they were able to sell goods for less.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago'Free' returns still cost time and effort. Since they started FBA I've come to wonder if every quirk with an Amazon order is due to a counterfeit or passing off a return as "factory" refurbished.
- distalx 2y agoThe monochromatic color scheme makes it a bit challenging to read. Adding some color variations might help improve readability for those of us with contrast perception issues. Just a thought!
- xrd 2y agoOne of my favorite books is by this author: "Understanding Comics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Comics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Comics Even if you don't like comics, it is an incredible take on how the brain processes images. Comics are art, more than anything else, about humans. And, this book is a work of art itself because it explains in detail how humans process images of other humans. I cannot recommend it enough. And, if you are a computer scientist it provides an additional definition for closure, which was surprising to me.
- luke-stanley 2y agoRobert Horn's `Visual language: global communication for the 21st century` is another great one!
- cflewis 2y agoI want to make it super clear (although the site takes pains to not): this comic wasn’t written/illustrated by McCloud. It was created by the person with the “Leah” handle.
- t0bia_s 2y agoTitle is clickbait. While comic nicely explain what is terrible with Chrome, those virtue signalling headlines wont help anything. Chrome is made by private company with terms of use that you agree with by using it. If you don't agree, don't use it. That's pretty much all you can do. Use competition and shape development by abandoning software with pathologic attitudes. I find weird titling private companies as threat for democracy and privacy even though you are not obligated to use it. While government intervention threats are used against citizens under laws without possibility to opt-out.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoFirst step to change is realize there is a problem. Speech like this can help motivate action. Note that most people don't even know what a browser is, and certainly can't distinguish from a Chrome reskin and a truly independent browser. Also keep in mind that students don't choose the browser on their ChromeOS laptops.
- t0bia_s 2y agoYes, I agree. But those words about threat for democracy are misleading. Often misused as fear from different opinions.
- user3939382 2y ago> If you don't agree, don't use it I find myself over the years drifting from this philosophy, having originally been an ardent advocate of it. The practical reality, i.e. the one we live in and therefore what actually matters, is that corporate power has massive influence on society and de facto control of government. Individuals do not have the resources to become experts in every domain and industry which creates a huge disadvantage in their ability to regulate via wallet/feet. Social consensus on this is proven by the existence of agencies like the FDA, SEC, many more. If individual/consumer choice and knowledge was enough to regulate all corporate behavior they wouldn’t exist. Unfortunately in many cases these regulators have been corrupted and captured by corporate power and the result is corporations doing whatever serves their interests at society’s expense.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- IX-103 2y agoOh, this steaming pile of FUD again. It combines a slick presentation with half-truths and misleading statements. This article conflates data sent from Chrome to search and other public APIs with data sent from Chrome to Chrome APIs for metrics/telemetry and safe search. The data sent to Chrome APIs like Safe Search, UMA/UKM, stored passwords, auto-fill data and Sync cannot be used to build an ad profile - thanks EU! With that in mind, let's go through the article. 1. The Omni-box: This data is sent to the Google Search API. So you shouldn't type anything there that you wouldn't send in Google Search. The article is correct here. 2. The amount of money Google gets from Chrome: very very little. The only source of revenue Google gets from Chrome are the ads on the Home page (if that's not disabled). These are just normal ads and don't get access to any special Chrome information. The article implies that Chrome is a significant part of the "257 billion in revenue", but that's not true. Google operates Chrome at a loss. Why does Google operate Chrome if it loses money? Because having a free and open web is essential to Google's main business of search. If the web is hidden behind login prompts or Flash animations or take off entirely into an App then Google's main business, search becomes much less useful (and therefore profitable). So Google is standing against the App-ification and Facebook-ization of the web (and also standing for it - big organizations are complicated and the right hand rarely knows what the left is doing). 3. Chrome does collect data about Chrome's performance on the websites you visit (assuming you opted in to sharing anonymous metrics). This data heavily anonymized (dropping data that doesn't appear for at least 50 users) and access is limited (need to know only). It is intended to be used to improve Chrome - finding slow things to make faster, things that use to much memory to use less, and to help fix things that crash the browser. It explicitly can't be used for ads purposes and can't even be shared outside of the Chrome teams. Each use case requires a separate privacy approval. This is also the case for any other Chrome APIs you might use (page translation, Sync, etc - really everything except the Omni-box). 4. Incognito protects against anything in the Omni-box being associated with your profile and uses temporary storage for all website data. Chrome still gets anonymous telemetry/metrics, which is probably how the article justifies saying Chrome still collects data. 5. Google Chrome as a "central hub". I honestly have no idea what this is trying to say. Yes, you use a web browser as a common way to visit many websites. If Chrome is a "central hub" for this then so.is every web browser. 6. Google maps. Yes, when you browse Google maps in Chrome, Google maps records what you look at, what your zoom level is and other things like that, but it's nothing to do with Chrome. It does that for every web browser. 7. "Your data is retained indefinitely". This is not true. Google has to follow EU law regarding information retention which places strict limits on how long information can be retained, even "for business purposes". Chrome can't keep non-anonymized data for more than a couple of months and anonymous data more than a couple of years. This is probably the most blatant lie in the piece. 8. Chrome bugs. The piece then refers to several Chrome bugs with privacy implications with scare quotes to imply they are intentional. This is very far from the case, as Chrome takes privacy very seriously. Chrome has a strong bug bounty program that pays users for reporting bugs like this to be fixed. If there were an intentional plan to add "bugs" for nefarious purposes then you would think they would fit a common theme or actually benefit Google in some way. Instead they just point to a couple of scary sounding bugs and wave their hands. 9. Manifest v3 - aka the end of ad block. This doesn't prevent ad blockers. It just moves to a declarative API instead of a functional one for request blocking. This means that the extension just had to say, in advance, what requests to block instead of being called for each request on an ad hoc basis. This avoids about 4 inter-process calls for each resource request. Needless to say that makes browsing the web much faster. If Chrome were actually against as blockers then it wouldn't ship with it's own ad blocker, based on EasyList, which it uses to identify and body ads that significantly disrupt the use experience (violating ad standards or using too many resources). I'm not saying that Chrome is the most private web browser - far from it, but I'd rather criticize them for what they are doing than for a bunch of stuff that they aren't. For instance, Chrome is likely going to be the last browser to get rid of third party cookies. Part of it is that Chrome was a bit late to the privacy party. The other part is that, since Google is also an advertiser, any major move they make that adversely affects advertisers can be seen as anticompetitive. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority has delayed Chrome's planned 3rd party deprecation by years and eventually forces Chrome to water it down into some sort of "user choice" thing that's rolling out...sometime. And even when Chrome gets rid of third party cookies, there's still the dumpster fire that is Related Website Sets allowing for some domains to effectively keep 3rd party cookie equivalents.
- KORraN 2y agoWhile I'm in Firefox camp, I hate the sensational half-truths in this comic. And why does it impersonate the original creator and Google Chrome team?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agohttps://contrchrome.com/comics/205/ https://contrchrome.com/comics/205/ "Bananaz sez: SIGN IN FOOLZ!"