▲ 1396 ▼ Google gets its way, bakes a user-tracking ad platform directly into Chrome (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 years ago by teft@startrek.website to c/technology@lemmy.world 354 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] DeadNinja@lemmy.world 161 points 2 years ago (2 children) Firefox is the way to go. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (4 children) What's Opera based on? My friends mostly use Mac, so they all use Opera and Chrome, but I have gotten them to stop using Chrome. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Angius@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nearly every browser is Chromium-based. Additionally, Opera is Chinese-owned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -41 points 2 years ago (3 children) So? It isn't google. Also google and Mozilla have Asian employees so I guess you'll have to be not racist. I do agree that the Chinese government is problematic though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing I think it's pretty clear that that's exactly what they were implying. What is it that you think they meant by that? And I agree with them. I also agree that it's not racist but anything Chinese is pretty much defacto-owned and operated by the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago Hooray pointless-nonsense-spew! permalink fedilink source parent [–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* It uses Chromium as its base, so is essentially Chrome with fancy things attached to it. It uses Blink, Chrome/Chromium's rendering engine. We need fewer Chromium-based browsers out there. The greater marketshare they have, the easier it will be for Google to push W3C and everyone else around to conform to their desired business model. For example, when Google inevitably pushes WEI into Chrome, WebKit and Gecko (Safari-based and Firefox-based browsers) won't be affected at all. If, however, 90% of all users end up on Blink (whether it's Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, Brave, or whatever) then Google can do whatever they want to the web. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago Chromium is owned by Google. That should be bad enough permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Opera was bought by a Chinese data analytics company, and once that happened, they scrapped their engine and used chromium to save money. They have questionable CCP ties too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Sentau@lemmy.one 21 points 2 years ago* Maybe use that information to try and influence the public in the same way that cambridge analytica did for the 2016 elections. permalink fedilink source parent [–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone having that data is a problem in itself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevehobbes@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) lol. This thread is about people mad that google is doing it, and you’re saying so what if a nation state does it? The answer is the same either way - to either sell the data to a party who want to manipulate you into doing or thinking what they want or by directly manipulating you into doing or thinking what they want. Same with Reddit and lemmy. It doesn’t take a whole lot of investment (on a state level actor basis) to manipulate small and large communities or individuals into thinking something is normal or mainstream. Or convincing them that everyone loves this product or it’s so popular or whatever. The CCP censors their entire internet for their people and collects all sorts of information to root out dissidents. What good thing do you think is going to come from them having that data? permalink fedilink source parent [–] csolisr@communities.azkware.net 15 points 2 years ago Opera has unfortunately given up and switched to Chromium as its backend. permalink fedilink source parent [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago At least its not chrome permalink fedilink source parent [+] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world -27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Give it time. Greed is greed, just a matter of time. Personally I’m back to use the old carrier pigeon. Kinda slow but probably still better than dialup Edit: Either y’all don’t get this was a joke, or haven’t been alive long enough to watch your hero’s die. Either way, fuck Google, sorry to rain on the parade permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) And soon, the carrier pigeon breeders will start tagging them with tracking chips.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Stooooop 😂😂😂 permalink fedilink source parent [–] kabobglance@infosec.pub 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Carrier pigeons are still faster than the internet, tested again this year to prove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Bandwidth, maybe, but that latency... permalink fedilink source parent [–] cjthomp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Or they just didn't think it was funny... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago Absolutely not. I’ve seen what you people think is funny. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago oR mAyBe I JuSt got DowNvoTe brIgaDeD permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (4 children) What's Opera based on? My friends mostly use Mac, so they all use Opera and Chrome, but I have gotten them to stop using Chrome. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Angius@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nearly every browser is Chromium-based. Additionally, Opera is Chinese-owned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -41 points 2 years ago (3 children) So? It isn't google. Also google and Mozilla have Asian employees so I guess you'll have to be not racist. I do agree that the Chinese government is problematic though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing I think it's pretty clear that that's exactly what they were implying. What is it that you think they meant by that? And I agree with them. I also agree that it's not racist but anything Chinese is pretty much defacto-owned and operated by the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago Hooray pointless-nonsense-spew! permalink fedilink source parent [–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* It uses Chromium as its base, so is essentially Chrome with fancy things attached to it. It uses Blink, Chrome/Chromium's rendering engine. We need fewer Chromium-based browsers out there. The greater marketshare they have, the easier it will be for Google to push W3C and everyone else around to conform to their desired business model. For example, when Google inevitably pushes WEI into Chrome, WebKit and Gecko (Safari-based and Firefox-based browsers) won't be affected at all. If, however, 90% of all users end up on Blink (whether it's Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, Brave, or whatever) then Google can do whatever they want to the web. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago Chromium is owned by Google. That should be bad enough permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Opera was bought by a Chinese data analytics company, and once that happened, they scrapped their engine and used chromium to save money. They have questionable CCP ties too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Sentau@lemmy.one 21 points 2 years ago* Maybe use that information to try and influence the public in the same way that cambridge analytica did for the 2016 elections. permalink fedilink source parent [–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone having that data is a problem in itself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevehobbes@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) lol. This thread is about people mad that google is doing it, and you’re saying so what if a nation state does it? The answer is the same either way - to either sell the data to a party who want to manipulate you into doing or thinking what they want or by directly manipulating you into doing or thinking what they want. Same with Reddit and lemmy. It doesn’t take a whole lot of investment (on a state level actor basis) to manipulate small and large communities or individuals into thinking something is normal or mainstream. Or convincing them that everyone loves this product or it’s so popular or whatever. The CCP censors their entire internet for their people and collects all sorts of information to root out dissidents. What good thing do you think is going to come from them having that data? permalink fedilink source parent [–] csolisr@communities.azkware.net 15 points 2 years ago Opera has unfortunately given up and switched to Chromium as its backend. permalink fedilink source parent [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago At least its not chrome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angius@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nearly every browser is Chromium-based. Additionally, Opera is Chinese-owned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -41 points 2 years ago (3 children) So? It isn't google. Also google and Mozilla have Asian employees so I guess you'll have to be not racist. I do agree that the Chinese government is problematic though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing I think it's pretty clear that that's exactly what they were implying. What is it that you think they meant by that? And I agree with them. I also agree that it's not racist but anything Chinese is pretty much defacto-owned and operated by the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago Hooray pointless-nonsense-spew! permalink fedilink source parent [–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* It uses Chromium as its base, so is essentially Chrome with fancy things attached to it. It uses Blink, Chrome/Chromium's rendering engine. We need fewer Chromium-based browsers out there. The greater marketshare they have, the easier it will be for Google to push W3C and everyone else around to conform to their desired business model. For example, when Google inevitably pushes WEI into Chrome, WebKit and Gecko (Safari-based and Firefox-based browsers) won't be affected at all. If, however, 90% of all users end up on Blink (whether it's Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, Brave, or whatever) then Google can do whatever they want to the web. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago Chromium is owned by Google. That should be bad enough permalink fedilink source parent
[+] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -41 points 2 years ago (3 children) So? It isn't google. Also google and Mozilla have Asian employees so I guess you'll have to be not racist. I do agree that the Chinese government is problematic though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing I think it's pretty clear that that's exactly what they were implying. What is it that you think they meant by that? And I agree with them. I also agree that it's not racist but anything Chinese is pretty much defacto-owned and operated by the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago Hooray pointless-nonsense-spew! permalink fedilink source parent [–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* It uses Chromium as its base, so is essentially Chrome with fancy things attached to it. It uses Blink, Chrome/Chromium's rendering engine. We need fewer Chromium-based browsers out there. The greater marketshare they have, the easier it will be for Google to push W3C and everyone else around to conform to their desired business model. For example, when Google inevitably pushes WEI into Chrome, WebKit and Gecko (Safari-based and Firefox-based browsers) won't be affected at all. If, however, 90% of all users end up on Blink (whether it's Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, Brave, or whatever) then Google can do whatever they want to the web. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago Chromium is owned by Google. That should be bad enough permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing I think it's pretty clear that that's exactly what they were implying. What is it that you think they meant by that? And I agree with them. I also agree that it's not racist but anything Chinese is pretty much defacto-owned and operated by the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago Hooray pointless-nonsense-spew! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing I think it's pretty clear that that's exactly what they were implying. What is it that you think they meant by that? And I agree with them. I also agree that it's not racist but anything Chinese is pretty much defacto-owned and operated by the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern, as you don't have a single clue what happens with your data there. There's zero reason to assume anything bad especially with a simple statement like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I personally thought they were implying that China could be a privacy concern ...and this is a good thing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you leave out the rest of what I said sure? I don't actually know what you're asking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I left it out because its not important. You said they didn't say anything bad and then said you thought they were saying it compromises your privacy. Maybe you don't care about privacy but I think most people would consider invading your privacy very much "a bad thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This argument was never about invading privacy not being a bad thing? It was about the racism and such comment the other commenter made? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, do you have amnesia? I'd like to point out that they said nothing about it being a bad thing and that all they did was say it was Chinese-owned, hence making your comment a pointless attack of nonsense. They were very clearly implying that being Chinese-owned is a bad thing (because of the privacy implications), which is the opposite of what you said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm going to stop replying now because this is going nowhere, but no that is not what I said and I really don't know what to tell you. You're missing key things here about the intention and tone of my comment and the one I replied to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago Maybe you'd like to attempt again to explain what you meant? Because you have already confirmed my understanding was correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago Hooray pointless-nonsense-spew! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* It uses Chromium as its base, so is essentially Chrome with fancy things attached to it. It uses Blink, Chrome/Chromium's rendering engine. We need fewer Chromium-based browsers out there. The greater marketshare they have, the easier it will be for Google to push W3C and everyone else around to conform to their desired business model. For example, when Google inevitably pushes WEI into Chrome, WebKit and Gecko (Safari-based and Firefox-based browsers) won't be affected at all. If, however, 90% of all users end up on Blink (whether it's Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, Brave, or whatever) then Google can do whatever they want to the web. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago Chromium is owned by Google. That should be bad enough permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Opera was bought by a Chinese data analytics company, and once that happened, they scrapped their engine and used chromium to save money. They have questionable CCP ties too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Sentau@lemmy.one 21 points 2 years ago* Maybe use that information to try and influence the public in the same way that cambridge analytica did for the 2016 elections. permalink fedilink source parent [–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone having that data is a problem in itself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevehobbes@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) lol. This thread is about people mad that google is doing it, and you’re saying so what if a nation state does it? The answer is the same either way - to either sell the data to a party who want to manipulate you into doing or thinking what they want or by directly manipulating you into doing or thinking what they want. Same with Reddit and lemmy. It doesn’t take a whole lot of investment (on a state level actor basis) to manipulate small and large communities or individuals into thinking something is normal or mainstream. Or convincing them that everyone loves this product or it’s so popular or whatever. The CCP censors their entire internet for their people and collects all sorts of information to root out dissidents. What good thing do you think is going to come from them having that data? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Sentau@lemmy.one 21 points 2 years ago* Maybe use that information to try and influence the public in the same way that cambridge analytica did for the 2016 elections. permalink fedilink source parent [–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone having that data is a problem in itself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevehobbes@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) lol. This thread is about people mad that google is doing it, and you’re saying so what if a nation state does it? The answer is the same either way - to either sell the data to a party who want to manipulate you into doing or thinking what they want or by directly manipulating you into doing or thinking what they want. Same with Reddit and lemmy. It doesn’t take a whole lot of investment (on a state level actor basis) to manipulate small and large communities or individuals into thinking something is normal or mainstream. Or convincing them that everyone loves this product or it’s so popular or whatever. The CCP censors their entire internet for their people and collects all sorts of information to root out dissidents. What good thing do you think is going to come from them having that data? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sentau@lemmy.one 21 points 2 years ago* Maybe use that information to try and influence the public in the same way that cambridge analytica did for the 2016 elections. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Someone having that data is a problem in itself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stevehobbes@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) lol. This thread is about people mad that google is doing it, and you’re saying so what if a nation state does it? The answer is the same either way - to either sell the data to a party who want to manipulate you into doing or thinking what they want or by directly manipulating you into doing or thinking what they want. Same with Reddit and lemmy. It doesn’t take a whole lot of investment (on a state level actor basis) to manipulate small and large communities or individuals into thinking something is normal or mainstream. Or convincing them that everyone loves this product or it’s so popular or whatever. The CCP censors their entire internet for their people and collects all sorts of information to root out dissidents. What good thing do you think is going to come from them having that data? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] csolisr@communities.azkware.net 15 points 2 years ago Opera has unfortunately given up and switched to Chromium as its backend. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago At least its not chrome permalink fedilink source parent
[+] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world -27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Give it time. Greed is greed, just a matter of time. Personally I’m back to use the old carrier pigeon. Kinda slow but probably still better than dialup Edit: Either y’all don’t get this was a joke, or haven’t been alive long enough to watch your hero’s die. Either way, fuck Google, sorry to rain on the parade permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) And soon, the carrier pigeon breeders will start tagging them with tracking chips.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Stooooop 😂😂😂 permalink fedilink source parent [–] kabobglance@infosec.pub 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Carrier pigeons are still faster than the internet, tested again this year to prove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Bandwidth, maybe, but that latency... permalink fedilink source parent [–] cjthomp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Or they just didn't think it was funny... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago Absolutely not. I’ve seen what you people think is funny. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago oR mAyBe I JuSt got DowNvoTe brIgaDeD permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) And soon, the carrier pigeon breeders will start tagging them with tracking chips.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Stooooop 😂😂😂 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kabobglance@infosec.pub 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Carrier pigeons are still faster than the internet, tested again this year to prove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Bandwidth, maybe, but that latency... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Bandwidth, maybe, but that latency... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cjthomp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Or they just didn't think it was funny... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago Absolutely not. I’ve seen what you people think is funny. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago oR mAyBe I JuSt got DowNvoTe brIgaDeD permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago Absolutely not. I’ve seen what you people think is funny. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago oR mAyBe I JuSt got DowNvoTe brIgaDeD permalink fedilink source parent