its still furthering googles control of the internet, which is an inherent threat to privacy, regardless if you think you are participating in it or not.
Comment on Why I recommend against Brave.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 1 week agoBut neutered Chrome (aka repurposed + degoogled Chromium) isn’t the same as Google Chrome. I 100% understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t file this under “privacy” (at least not without some asterisks).
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Once again, that’s not privacy (the context of this discussion). Your point is that using Chromium encourages websites (as in, developers) to keep making sites that are Chromium-optimized, instead of browser-agnostic.
When you take all the “Google” out of a browser, they’re not getting any information from you because those mechanisms no longer exist. Again, I’m talking about Google and Chrome. You’re combining 3 different “issues” and slapping a “PRIVACY” label on them.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You’re the kind of person that gets told repeatedly that X is bad, don’t do bad.
Then you do X, get in deep trouble, and cry about how could anyone possible let this happen, and expect everyone else around you to clean up the mess, arent you.
Google dominating the internet IS a privacy problem.
Taking google tracking bullshit out of your browser does nothing to address their monopolistic power that allows them to violate your privacy even without their tracking shit in their browser. Using Chrome/Chromium hurts privacy. Because using google shit in general hurts privacy. Using chrome/chromium furthers googles base, further forces the web to align with what google wants, and is bad for privacy, and for everything.
And Chrome was never the most performant. Google just sabotage their own services to run worse on competitors browsers, because end users are stupid and will just assume "not google browser = bad " and use chrome.
And if you still cant wrap your head around it, then you’re hopeless.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Google dominating the internet IS a privacy problem.
I agree, but using a non-Google, Chromium-based browser/fork that removes all of the Google bits is a separate issue than Google Chrome having huge marketshare. I don’t know how old you are, and the reason I say that is because I’m old enough to remember the original beta release (and 1.0) of Chrome. Chrome then isn’t what Chrome became years later, and now. That was my point in bringing up the past; because you’re acting like it’s been like this since day 1.
And Chrome was never the most performant. Google just sabotage their own services to run worse on competitors browsers, because end users are stupid and will just assume "not google browser = bad " and use chrome.
Sure, rewrite history. Chrome was never the most performant, and nobody had anything to say about its ludicrous speeds during the Windows XP/7 era, when it was released /s. I understand what you’re saying, but my overall point is that you’re being hyperbolic and tying together separate issues under one label. For example, Brave sucks, but not because it’s based on Chromium. It sucks because of their policies and the actual execution (e.g. removal of privacy-preserving features, whitelisting Meta ads, etc).
Also, you clearly don’t read anything because I already told you that I switched from Brave to Firefox on all of my devices. Now what I’d like to know is, what browser(s) are you using, and do you recommend, and why. Because, by your logic, it’s the rendering engine (Blink) that is the issue, since you say that even anti-Google forks of Chromium (not Chrome) are as bad as Chrome itself. Does that means that now I can’t use Firefox forks, because they’re all tied back to Mozilla, who also has inserted/removed/changed features that have to do with privacy? I’m genuinely asking you.
ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Forks of Firefox are still Firefox, no matter how neutered it is.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
That’s my point. So then what’s the solution when there are essentially two mainstream/mainline browsers? How far do you believe one needs to take it? Is a fork that de-Mozilla’s/de-Google’s the browser enough (and changes the name)? Or is that “still bad”?
Because eventually you’ll run out of [usable/daily-drivable] browsers, if you consider any fork to be “evil” by virtue of coming from Chromium/etc.
HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
A neutered fascist is still a fascist.
NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
If one forks Chromium like Firefox has been forked to hell and back, then I view it as effectively taking the power out of Google’s hands. The issue with Chrome supremacy is that Google gets to, directly or indirectly, shape how websites/the internet operates/are built/optimized (since web devs will use it to do their web dev).
So then wouldn’t a better strategy be to make a Firefox-like, Chromium browser that is truly “neutral” (like Firefox is *on paper)? Also, remember that Mozilla receives a huge chunk of funding from Google, directly, in order to “keep Chrome from being a monopoly”.
Now, that last part depends on whether you considering Chrome to be Chromium, which I don’t. Here’s my understanding/view, overall (feel free to cherrypick or challenge any of it; I welcome and respect your opinions/corrections):
Firefox has existed for longer than Chrome, but Chrome on release was leaner and faster (I speak from personal experience). The only other option was Internet Explorer, which was “Chrome” at the time (as in, average people defaulted to the “blue e” icon)
Chrome became the dominant browser because it was lean and fast for its time. It’s obviously different now, but you cannot retroactively fault people for choosing an objectively-better browser [for the time]
Genuinely not defending Google here, but my opinion is that a large reason we began to transition from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is because of Chrome (and any other modern browsers). This meant Chrome-optimized sites that didn’t work well with other browsers, but I view it as a no-fault situation (it’s just how tech progresses; it breaks compatibility with existing tech sometimes)
Most people use “Google-everything” these days; I myself have had a Gmail account since it was a closed beta. This means they’re more likely to lean towards Chrome, because Google recommends it anyway
So to me, the issues are actually that people default to Google-everything, including Chrome (thus feeding Google info about their entire lives, 24/7). But I don’t see Chromium itself as evil. On its own, it’s open-source (minus Google bits obviously), which is what allows forks to be made that not only avoid the Google bits, but outright block them. I think it’s taking power back. I don’t think “EVERYONE SHOULD SWITCH TO FIREFOX OR A FIREFOX FORK IMMEDIATELY” is realistic (and I say that as someone who switched back to Firefox months ago)
I also think that web devs themselves should stop being biased towards…“Chrome-sponsored” (figure of speech) best practices. But I also think that Mozilla should [continue] making their browser more compatible with modern websites, and even maybe get more involved in establishing web design best-practices (meaning practices/technologies that work well equally regardless of browser or rendering engine). In fact, recently Mozilla highlighted their Web Compatibility reporting tool, so that people can let them know about sites that don’t render correctly in their browser