23
Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer (treeherder.mozilla.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

since they're chromium i don't trust them an inch with my personal data.

This is such a ridiculous position. Do you have any evidence at all that every Chromium browser (even the ones specifically designed to avoid this) are transmitting your personal data?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Evidence? OF COURSE!

    Have you even tried searching for it?

    Google even says so for Chromium on its own official page!

    https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/144289/privacy-with-chromium

    You don't need to trust us. Trust Google, they are telling you legally if you want to listen.

    Also, look up the handful of open bugs on the Debian but tracker, where known people, with name and faces (I've met some on conferences), showcase and share how Chromium calls home and sends encrypted data. They share their Wireshark logs.

    https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=792580;msg=53

    Look up how Debian removed Chromium for a time, until some of it got removed upstream.

    And all of this doesn't mean that Google cannot re-introduce it or add different approaches in new updates.

    Plus, Google actively creates and pushes for their "standards" via Chrome(ium), which allows them to push for even more surveillance.

    In addition, Chromium is not a community project. It's developed behind closed doors, with a secret roadmap, and a code dump happens on release. That's no way to develop the 90% of web browser market that society needs in this day and age. But, don't think you will care about that, do you? you are happy with papa Google for the foreseeable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Have you even tried searching for it?

    Of course I have. I've never found any substantiation, which is why I'm asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.

    Google even says so for Chromium on its own official page!

    This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it's confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.

    Plus, Google actively creates and pushes for their "standards" via Chrome(ium), which allows them to push for even more surveillance.

    This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it's users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    How hard can you simp for Vivaldi. Jesus Christ.

    You don't think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial? What more could you possibly need?

    What's worse is that Vivaldi took an open source browser with a bunch of privacy concerns, added some things and closed the source. And you think it's somehow less of a cause of concern.

    You're nuts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    How hard can you simp for Vivaldi. Jesus Christ.

    I use 5 different browsers, zero of which are Vivaldi, and thus do not "simp" for Vivaldi. The only "simping" I do is for the truth. The Google hate train is valid but misplaced in this instance.

    You don't think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial?

    You're simply deliberately misreading my comment because what I said is not that it's unsubstantial, I said that it's inaccurate. Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks or their respective individual privacy policies'. This statement only pertains to the Chromium web browser.

    I can see that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I won't be engaging with you further. Bye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.

    Just run WIreshark against your Chromium then. Enjoy.

    This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.

    Did you read the link I posted?

    Let me copy-paste directly from the Chromium office page for you then:

    Additional Information on Chromium, Google Chrome, and Privacy

    Features that communicate with Google made available through the compilation of code in Chromium are subject to the Google Privacy Policy.

    There, you have it. Now you can try moving more goalposts again, and provide excuses for them.

    This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.

    Nah it's not. I'm talking about Google pushing and implementing IETF standards that hamstring privacy. They are open standards, but they are malicious. That a standard is open doesn't mean is doing things that are not ethical.

    To me, it's obvious that you don't even want to look for proof. Why so hell-bent on taking the stance of a state-level billionare corporation built by extracting privacy from users? How do you think they got there?

    Or do you have something specific against the legal non-profit organization that is Mozilla?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •