4 ms·

The wording here is bad, but basically CAA supports non browser specific policy and, in some cases, browser specific policy (GSuite offers a "Managed Chrome" po

The wording here is bad, but basically CAA supports non browser specific policy and, in some cases, browser specific policy (GSuite offers a "Managed Chrome" policy). Firefox users can leverage much of the non browser specific policy, they obviously can not be a part of the "Managed Chrome" offering.

saghm 4mo ago
There's no contradiction here; it's totally possible for a company to make a feature configurable so that it doesn't block their competitors but also intentionally design and market it in a way that's misleading in ways that will lead to their competitors getting blocked. When we're talking about a company as large as Google and a product with as much market share as Chrome, I don't think it's that crazy to think that things like this add up to encouraging even more hegemony, and when that happens to align perfectly with the incentives of the company making said product decisions, I also don't think it's crazy to think it's unlikely to be a coincidence.
- insanitybit 4mo ago
  If the argument is that Google has built a product that encourages use of Google products, of course. The question is whether that's some sort of trickery or odd or bad. "Google offers Managed Chrome as a service" hardly seems controversial to me.
  - jchw 4mo ago
    Google offering managed chrome as a service is a completely sensible thing. The problem is that they are nearly a browser monopoly, and making Google Workspace work in such a way with Google Chrome feels to me like anti-competitive practices. If we didn't have one giant megacorp that did both things, it would be different. Of course, so far the only workable model for web browsers is having a giant megacorp fund their development and maintenance. Which is a huge issue, and we will do basically nothing about it. (Don't get me wrong. I have high hopes for Ladybird and even Servo, but they may come too late if effectively-proprietary features force most users to stick to Chrome anyways.)
    - insanitybit 4mo ago
      I'm not sure what the alternative is. Is there will from Firefox to support a "standard browser config", at which point GSuite could add support for managed Firefox config? If you want managed Firefox, Mozilla could offer that as well (they have something but it's different enough).
      - spwa4 4mo ago
        The alternative that we've used for the past 100+ years is to force such companies apart. Is Google Docs allowed to offer a "managed chrome" policy? Sure. Is Google Chrome allowed to be a browser? Absolutely! But if either side is close to a monopoly, both cannot be part of the same company, even if that means breaking an existing company up.
        insanitybit 4mo ago
        I think it's fine to advocate that Google should be split up but I don't think that CAA is a good example of a company abusing power.
        jchw 4mo ago
        There's really nothing particularly wrong with the Chrome feature itself. There is a bit of a problem with the way it inherently results in browser vendor lock-in (regardless of whether it is a stated goal) with Google Workspace, which is by the same company. That's the main problem. I may be missing something because I feel like this specific point has been reiterated a few times in this thread but I haven't seen it actually rebuked directly.
        insanitybit 4mo ago
        There is no Chrome feature here? We must be talking past each other, yes.
        4mo ago

saghm 4mo ago

There's no contradiction here; it's totally possible for a company to make a feature configurable so that it doesn't block their competitors but also intentionally design and market it in a way that's misleading in ways that will lead to their competitors getting blocked. When we're talking about a company as large as Google and a product with as much market share as Chrome, I don't think it's that crazy to think that things like this add up to encouraging even more hegemony, and when that happens to align perfectly with the incentives of the company making said product decisions, I also don't think it's crazy to think it's unlikely to be a coincidence.

insanitybit 4mo ago
If the argument is that Google has built a product that encourages use of Google products, of course. The question is whether that's some sort of trickery or odd or bad. "Google offers Managed Chrome as a service" hardly seems controversial to me.
- jchw 4mo ago
  Google offering managed chrome as a service is a completely sensible thing. The problem is that they are nearly a browser monopoly, and making Google Workspace work in such a way with Google Chrome feels to me like anti-competitive practices. If we didn't have one giant megacorp that did both things, it would be different. Of course, so far the only workable model for web browsers is having a giant megacorp fund their development and maintenance. Which is a huge issue, and we will do basically nothing about it. (Don't get me wrong. I have high hopes for Ladybird and even Servo, but they may come too late if effectively-proprietary features force most users to stick to Chrome anyways.)
  - insanitybit 4mo ago
    I'm not sure what the alternative is. Is there will from Firefox to support a "standard browser config", at which point GSuite could add support for managed Firefox config? If you want managed Firefox, Mozilla could offer that as well (they have something but it's different enough).
    - spwa4 4mo ago
      The alternative that we've used for the past 100+ years is to force such companies apart. Is Google Docs allowed to offer a "managed chrome" policy? Sure. Is Google Chrome allowed to be a browser? Absolutely! But if either side is close to a monopoly, both cannot be part of the same company, even if that means breaking an existing company up.
      - insanitybit 4mo ago
        I think it's fine to advocate that Google should be split up but I don't think that CAA is a good example of a company abusing power.
        jchw 4mo ago
        There's really nothing particularly wrong with the Chrome feature itself. There is a bit of a problem with the way it inherently results in browser vendor lock-in (regardless of whether it is a stated goal) with Google Workspace, which is by the same company. That's the main problem. I may be missing something because I feel like this specific point has been reiterated a few times in this thread but I haven't seen it actually rebuked directly.
        insanitybit 4mo ago
        There is no Chrome feature here? We must be talking past each other, yes.
        4mo ago