3 ms·

The issue I have is not that they did it; it’s that they lied about why. Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. People

by sneak 2y ago

The issue I have is not that they did it; it’s that they lied about why. Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. People can use a different browser if they wish (I do). This whole “better for users” bullshit is why I don’t respect Google as a company. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

zanellato19 2y ago
Their engineers genuinely believe that shit too, which is just absurd bullshit.
- skotobaza 2y ago
  Do they really? Or are you assuming?
  - hansvm 2y ago
    I've seen a lot of their engineers here on HN defending Google's position, and very few of the anti-Google crowd here claim to be (x)googlers. That said, I know a number of xooglers (myself included) who don't believe for a moment that this would have gotten off the ground if someone important hadn't opined on the usefulness WRT ad-serving.
  - zanellato19 2y ago
    I have seen engineers defend that position here and on Github, so unless you assume they're lying, I would take them at their word. Of course not all of them do, Google is a big company.
- grumpy_coder 2y ago
  More like the willfully blind engineers, disingenuously claim to believe that absurd bullshit. There's not a lot genuine left in that company.
- yard2010 2y ago
  Perfect time to read again The Gervais Principle! https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - photonthug 2y ago
    Ah yes, "determinedly deluded loyalty to the company that will never be loyal to him".
mort96 2y ago
Actually I have a problem is both. Chrome/Chromium is Google's product and it's theirs to do with what they please, but if they do user-hostile things with it, that's enough to criticise them for me, even if they're honest about it. Of course lying about why makes it worse, but I don't think it would've been that much more okay if Google was honest and said "users' ability to install highly effective ad blockers hurts our bottom line so we're removing them".
pca006132 2y ago
And I don't understand what is the benefit of lying as well - everyone on the internet knows what this is about, at least if they used ad blockers. A lot of people don't, but they will not be affected anyway.
- _tqr3 2y ago
  Only users who are tech-savy know they are lying. My mom, who has Ublock Origin installed on her Chrome by me, will never know these details.
princevegeta89 2y ago
Where I live, Google rented out a huge Billboard to advertise Chrome, and it cites Chrome as "the world's most trusted browser" I LOL every time I see it. Imagine the lengths they have to go to, to try to make people trust a product they have.
- dsr_ 2y ago
  Trusted is known to not be the same as trustworthy.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    The Bible is a widely trusted source on topics such as the origin of the world, and life.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Repeat the lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes accepted as truth. A billboard is pretty loud in this context.
- keybored 2y ago
  Like Chomsky said: (corporate) propaganda is incredibly widespread but about an ankle deep.
marricks 2y ago
> Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. Google has a long history of "accidentally" breaking gmail on firefox and funneling users to Chrome back in the day. It's beyond stupid to argue they should be able to do whatever they want with their vertically integrated monopoly. Like, if you want to dig holes in your own driveway sure whatever, but if you own all the roads in Detroit and you want to dig holes in them, then make a killing selling new tires and suspension repair a fair society wouldn't move out of Detroit, they'd fucking run you out of town.
- sneak 2y ago
  If people don’t like this, they can stop using gmail. Neither Chrome, nor Gmail is a monopoly. The more things Google does to make gmail less useful, the better. It’s no secret that Google is an ad company. Anyone still using gmail deserves what they get.
  - marricks 2y ago
    Why be bitter at the people dealing with the shit, why not be angry at the people making the world shit? My company uses gmail so I'm forced to use it.
    - sneak 2y ago
      Everyone dealing with gmail is doing so because they chose to. Let’s not pretend this was done unto them. Anyone can stop using gmail at any time.
      - kazinator 2y ago
        No, not for all types of "dealing with". If you're dealing with spam originating from Gmail, without any helpful action from Google, that's not really your choice. If you're dealing with difficulties sending mail to Gmail users, without help from Google, that's also not really your choice. If vast numbers of other people stopped using Gmail, those problems would mostly go away.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I don’t work for Google and genuinely think it’s better for users. It’s always bugged me that ad blockers request arbitrary read write permissions for all websites I visit, and it didn’t seem like that was ever going to change until Chrome forced the issue.
- chihuahua 2y ago
  It's not ideal, but if that's what it takes to block ads as well as uBlock Origin does, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    My content blocker on Safari blocks all the same ads as ublock origin in Chrome, with no supposedly no risk of outbound data.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    At the platform level, you have to have a security model, and sometimes it will conflict with functionality. I’m sure there’s a lot of potentially interesting browser extensions you could build with the ability to read and write arbitrary files, but Chrome has decided (much less controversially) that the sandbox is key to their security model and extensions can’t ask to escape it. If manifest V3 ad blockers were nonfunctional to the point of being broken, I’d be more concerned, but in my experience they’re perfectly OK.
  - creato 2y ago
    uBO Lite exists and I can't see any visible difference in how well it works. So, it's not a price you need to pay at all.
    - kolanos 2y ago
      In my testing, UBO Lite is not working as well on YouTube. It blocks the ad, but you still have to skip it. Original UBO didn't require this.
makeitdouble 2y ago
> Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. They shouldn't be free to use all the money in the world to corner a market, rope in the conpetition and then abuse that position. It only works because nobody can touch them, it's otherwise straight illegal in most markets.

by sneak 2y ago

zanellato19 2y ago

Their engineers genuinely believe that shit too, which is just absurd bullshit.

skotobaza 2y ago
Do they really? Or are you assuming?
- hansvm 2y ago
  I've seen a lot of their engineers here on HN defending Google's position, and very few of the anti-Google crowd here claim to be (x)googlers. That said, I know a number of xooglers (myself included) who don't believe for a moment that this would have gotten off the ground if someone important hadn't opined on the usefulness WRT ad-serving.
- zanellato19 2y ago
  I have seen engineers defend that position here and on Github, so unless you assume they're lying, I would take them at their word. Of course not all of them do, Google is a big company.
grumpy_coder 2y ago
More like the willfully blind engineers, disingenuously claim to believe that absurd bullshit. There's not a lot genuine left in that company.
yard2010 2y ago
Perfect time to read again The Gervais Principle! https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- photonthug 2y ago
  Ah yes, "determinedly deluded loyalty to the company that will never be loyal to him".

mort96 2y ago

Actually I have a problem is both. Chrome/Chromium is Google's product and it's theirs to do with what they please, but if they do user-hostile things with it, that's enough to criticise them for me, even if they're honest about it. Of course lying about why makes it worse, but I don't think it would've been that much more okay if Google was honest and said "users' ability to install highly effective ad blockers hurts our bottom line so we're removing them".

pca006132 2y ago

And I don't understand what is the benefit of lying as well - everyone on the internet knows what this is about, at least if they used ad blockers. A lot of people don't, but they will not be affected anyway.

_tqr3 2y ago
Only users who are tech-savy know they are lying. My mom, who has Ublock Origin installed on her Chrome by me, will never know these details.

princevegeta89 2y ago

Where I live, Google rented out a huge Billboard to advertise Chrome, and it cites Chrome as "the world's most trusted browser" I LOL every time I see it. Imagine the lengths they have to go to, to try to make people trust a product they have.

dsr_ 2y ago
Trusted is known to not be the same as trustworthy.
- kazinator 2y ago
  The Bible is a widely trusted source on topics such as the origin of the world, and life.
dylan604 2y ago
Repeat the lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes accepted as truth. A billboard is pretty loud in this context.
keybored 2y ago
Like Chomsky said: (corporate) propaganda is incredibly widespread but about an ankle deep.

marricks 2y ago

> Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. Google has a long history of "accidentally" breaking gmail on firefox and funneling users to Chrome back in the day. It's beyond stupid to argue they should be able to do whatever they want with their vertically integrated monopoly. Like, if you want to dig holes in your own driveway sure whatever, but if you own all the roads in Detroit and you want to dig holes in them, then make a killing selling new tires and suspension repair a fair society wouldn't move out of Detroit, they'd fucking run you out of town.

sneak 2y ago
If people don’t like this, they can stop using gmail. Neither Chrome, nor Gmail is a monopoly. The more things Google does to make gmail less useful, the better. It’s no secret that Google is an ad company. Anyone still using gmail deserves what they get.
- marricks 2y ago
  Why be bitter at the people dealing with the shit, why not be angry at the people making the world shit? My company uses gmail so I'm forced to use it.
  - sneak 2y ago
    Everyone dealing with gmail is doing so because they chose to. Let’s not pretend this was done unto them. Anyone can stop using gmail at any time.
    - kazinator 2y ago
      No, not for all types of "dealing with". If you're dealing with spam originating from Gmail, without any helpful action from Google, that's not really your choice. If you're dealing with difficulties sending mail to Gmail users, without help from Google, that's also not really your choice. If vast numbers of other people stopped using Gmail, those problems would mostly go away.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

I don’t work for Google and genuinely think it’s better for users. It’s always bugged me that ad blockers request arbitrary read write permissions for all websites I visit, and it didn’t seem like that was ever going to change until Chrome forced the issue.

chihuahua 2y ago
It's not ideal, but if that's what it takes to block ads as well as uBlock Origin does, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  My content blocker on Safari blocks all the same ads as ublock origin in Chrome, with no supposedly no risk of outbound data.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  At the platform level, you have to have a security model, and sometimes it will conflict with functionality. I’m sure there’s a lot of potentially interesting browser extensions you could build with the ability to read and write arbitrary files, but Chrome has decided (much less controversially) that the sandbox is key to their security model and extensions can’t ask to escape it. If manifest V3 ad blockers were nonfunctional to the point of being broken, I’d be more concerned, but in my experience they’re perfectly OK.
- creato 2y ago
  uBO Lite exists and I can't see any visible difference in how well it works. So, it's not a price you need to pay at all.
  - kolanos 2y ago
    In my testing, UBO Lite is not working as well on YouTube. It blocks the ad, but you still have to skip it. Original UBO didn't require this.

makeitdouble 2y ago

> Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. They shouldn't be free to use all the money in the world to corner a market, rope in the conpetition and then abuse that position. It only works because nobody can touch them, it's otherwise straight illegal in most markets.