4 ms·

I want to know what power I have as just some guy to do anything about this? (even if just for myself) I ask because it seems like every job I apply to asks fo

I want to know what power I have as just some guy to do anything about this? (even if just for myself) I ask because it seems like every job I apply to asks for a linkedin profile, and I've heard floating around that if it's not filled in enough most employers assume you're a bot. Heck, one of the forms from the "who's hiring" thread yesterday straight up said if you have < 100 connections they'd throw out your application. So, in order to get my foot in the door, I need to hand over vast and intricate data about my personal life to a third party?

solarkraft 6mo ago
This is why the EU regulates them (or pretends to) as a public utility. The individual action I took was to donate to Fairlinks‘ legal fund.
nojvek 6mo ago
I’d suggest having an adblocker first. Second not having a ton of extensions. Extensions can do fishy things. This is Chrome’s broken model. Before installing an extension, one should be able to see all the domains an extension talks to. The domains should be listed in manifest. But that’s not how it works. In Android, every app you open needs a gazillion default permissions.
OkayPhysicist 6mo ago
For you personally, to solve this issue in particular? Use Firefox. Google is evil, and there's a good chunk of the Chrome team who are actively enemy combatants. For the broader issue of not wanting to give even the information you'd need to choose to share to LinkedIn? Network the good ol' fashioned way: talking to random strangers in San Francisco bars.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > there's a good chunk of the Chrome team who are actively enemy combatants Uh what.
  - OkayPhysicist 6mo ago
    Everyone involved in Chrome's most questionable decisions such as Manifest V3's anti-adblocking, the Topics API, etc, are not just working orthogonal to the people's interest, they are directly working against it. I couched my statement down from the entirety of the Chrome team because I hesitate to label "making constant, marginal feature additions that ultimately result in anti competitive behavior" openly malicious. Everyone from the suit that made the ultimate calls down to the lowest code monkey who bugfixed such features are responsible for their choice to target the good, common user of the internet. I'm not asking for altruism, I just think people shouldn't choose to do evil, and that those who do anyway should be recognized as such.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      None of this makes them “enemy combatants.”
- Paianni 6mo ago
  Mozilla is controlled opposition (largely funded by Google) and the browser can't really compete on security and performance.

solarkraft 6mo ago

This is why the EU regulates them (or pretends to) as a public utility. The individual action I took was to donate to Fairlinks‘ legal fund.

nojvek 6mo ago

I’d suggest having an adblocker first. Second not having a ton of extensions. Extensions can do fishy things. This is Chrome’s broken model. Before installing an extension, one should be able to see all the domains an extension talks to. The domains should be listed in manifest. But that’s not how it works. In Android, every app you open needs a gazillion default permissions.

OkayPhysicist 6mo ago

For you personally, to solve this issue in particular? Use Firefox. Google is evil, and there's a good chunk of the Chrome team who are actively enemy combatants. For the broader issue of not wanting to give even the information you'd need to choose to share to LinkedIn? Network the good ol' fashioned way: talking to random strangers in San Francisco bars.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> there's a good chunk of the Chrome team who are actively enemy combatants Uh what.
- OkayPhysicist 6mo ago
  Everyone involved in Chrome's most questionable decisions such as Manifest V3's anti-adblocking, the Topics API, etc, are not just working orthogonal to the people's interest, they are directly working against it. I couched my statement down from the entirety of the Chrome team because I hesitate to label "making constant, marginal feature additions that ultimately result in anti competitive behavior" openly malicious. Everyone from the suit that made the ultimate calls down to the lowest code monkey who bugfixed such features are responsible for their choice to target the good, common user of the internet. I'm not asking for altruism, I just think people shouldn't choose to do evil, and that those who do anyway should be recognized as such.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    None of this makes them “enemy combatants.”
Paianni 6mo ago
Mozilla is controlled opposition (largely funded by Google) and the browser can't really compete on security and performance.