4 ms·

If Chrome would need to be sold off, or Android, or Maps, those can only become even more pressured to be monetized for user data, I’m afraid

casey2 1y ago
More pressure than the max? Do you think they are going to start using your password hashes to mine bitcoin? Whatever Google stopped tracking they did because of regulation not out of user backlash or goodwill.
- yujzgzc 1y ago
  It's not the max yet. You could find yourself dealing with the same kind of dark pattern exploitation as you're dealing with in restaurant checkout experiences this day, around the preservation of your own data. I hope you have backups for yourself if you want to keep these docs and photos!
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > You could find yourself dealing with the same kind of dark pattern exploitation as you're dealing with in restaurant checkout experiences this day, around the preservation of your own data. When it comes to Google, we already find ourselves dealing with worse.
- rafaelmn 1y ago
  Have you started seeing browser embedded ads in Chrome ? It replacing competitor ads with it's own ? Rewriting referral links ? Pushing compromised extensions from "third parties" to siphon data they legally can't. Right now it's just there to cover Googles market position - it doesn't need to make a profit, if it had to make a profit and it couldn't do exclusive search default deal I guarantee you it will get ugly - like those scam search bars in IE in 2000s.
  - belorn 1y ago
    They don't need to embed ads into the browser if the websitet that the user will load are already loaded with google ads. They also don't need to replace competitor ads with google ads if there is no meaningful market share by any competitor. Why should they siphon data to a third parties when they themselves want the data, and its a competitive advantage to keep that data for themselves. What we are seeing is chrome becoming the new IE where alternatives browsers are not longer allowed on the internet. "You’re using a web browser that is not supported. In order to use [Insert website], please download Chrome for the best experience. Download Chrome here!". (https://www.datanyze.com/browser-support/ie/index.html https://www.datanyze.com/browser-support/ie/index.html)
    - rafaelmn 1y ago
      This is my point - Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. But if it had to make money without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.
      - MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
        Making moves so that competitors can't play at all is so far beyond playing dirty. It's anti-competitive and illegal.
        surajrmal 1y ago
        They can play, but they are competing with a raised bar which benefits consumers. It's not illegal to make things better.
        MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
        They aren't competing with a raised bar, they are competing with a bar that can only be passed if you already have a massive presence in an unrelated area. You can not compete with an entrenched existing player when they are giving their things away for "free", subsidized by a massive ad tax. This entrenchment is tailor-made to make competition infeasible. This is illegal for a reason. It does NOT benefit consumers to make it impossible for anybody to compete with you. This is anti-competitive, not competition.
ReptileMan 1y ago
Or for someone finally to solve the micropayment problem. I don't mind paying the 53 cents it costs google to provide me their services per month with 30 or 40% margin. But I refuse to subscribe for close to zero value services for 10 or 20 dollar a month.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  I have been hearing some version of this refrain since Mosaic was invented. "Make the web suck so that someone solves this problem" is just going to result in the web sucking.
- surajrmal 1y ago
  Do you want the web to work like clash of titans?
  - ReptileMan 1y ago
    Well sending bytes and creating them costs money. Someone has to pay them. So it is either ads or payments. The money it costs are close to zero, so we need a way to pay close to zero, that is easy if we don't want ads.
    - throw10920 1y ago
      Thank you for concisely expressing the core justification for micropayments. I have many arguments for why it's possible to implement, but I've never found a good way to describe why it's necessary before. Maybe we'll get something from Mozilla eventually - but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect it'll only happen if there's a massive awareness campaign that produces a demand signal for it in the general public (as opposed to just tech nerds).
  - throw10920 1y ago
    What? This is nonsensical. Why did you post this?

casey2 1y ago

More pressure than the max? Do you think they are going to start using your password hashes to mine bitcoin? Whatever Google stopped tracking they did because of regulation not out of user backlash or goodwill.

yujzgzc 1y ago
It's not the max yet. You could find yourself dealing with the same kind of dark pattern exploitation as you're dealing with in restaurant checkout experiences this day, around the preservation of your own data. I hope you have backups for yourself if you want to keep these docs and photos!
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > You could find yourself dealing with the same kind of dark pattern exploitation as you're dealing with in restaurant checkout experiences this day, around the preservation of your own data. When it comes to Google, we already find ourselves dealing with worse.
rafaelmn 1y ago
Have you started seeing browser embedded ads in Chrome ? It replacing competitor ads with it's own ? Rewriting referral links ? Pushing compromised extensions from "third parties" to siphon data they legally can't. Right now it's just there to cover Googles market position - it doesn't need to make a profit, if it had to make a profit and it couldn't do exclusive search default deal I guarantee you it will get ugly - like those scam search bars in IE in 2000s.
- belorn 1y ago
  They don't need to embed ads into the browser if the websitet that the user will load are already loaded with google ads. They also don't need to replace competitor ads with google ads if there is no meaningful market share by any competitor. Why should they siphon data to a third parties when they themselves want the data, and its a competitive advantage to keep that data for themselves. What we are seeing is chrome becoming the new IE where alternatives browsers are not longer allowed on the internet. "You’re using a web browser that is not supported. In order to use [Insert website], please download Chrome for the best experience. Download Chrome here!". (https://www.datanyze.com/browser-support/ie/index.html https://www.datanyze.com/browser-support/ie/index.html)
  - rafaelmn 1y ago
    This is my point - Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. But if it had to make money without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.
    - MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
      Making moves so that competitors can't play at all is so far beyond playing dirty. It's anti-competitive and illegal.
      - surajrmal 1y ago
        They can play, but they are competing with a raised bar which benefits consumers. It's not illegal to make things better.
        MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
        They aren't competing with a raised bar, they are competing with a bar that can only be passed if you already have a massive presence in an unrelated area. You can not compete with an entrenched existing player when they are giving their things away for "free", subsidized by a massive ad tax. This entrenchment is tailor-made to make competition infeasible. This is illegal for a reason. It does NOT benefit consumers to make it impossible for anybody to compete with you. This is anti-competitive, not competition.

ReptileMan 1y ago

Or for someone finally to solve the micropayment problem. I don't mind paying the 53 cents it costs google to provide me their services per month with 30 or 40% margin. But I refuse to subscribe for close to zero value services for 10 or 20 dollar a month.

stickfigure 1y ago
I have been hearing some version of this refrain since Mosaic was invented. "Make the web suck so that someone solves this problem" is just going to result in the web sucking.
surajrmal 1y ago
Do you want the web to work like clash of titans?
- ReptileMan 1y ago
  Well sending bytes and creating them costs money. Someone has to pay them. So it is either ads or payments. The money it costs are close to zero, so we need a way to pay close to zero, that is easy if we don't want ads.
  - throw10920 1y ago
    Thank you for concisely expressing the core justification for micropayments. I have many arguments for why it's possible to implement, but I've never found a good way to describe why it's necessary before. Maybe we'll get something from Mozilla eventually - but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect it'll only happen if there's a massive awareness campaign that produces a demand signal for it in the general public (as opposed to just tech nerds).
- throw10920 1y ago
  What? This is nonsensical. Why did you post this?