It's a recession and suddenly the money lost to adblockers matters.

Here’s the TLDR version:

• Most users (at least in my observation, in the instances and communities i’m on) on Lemmy are privacy minded, open source fans, linux enthusiasts , etc.

• Google is evil and will suck up any data they can find on you and sell it to anyone that will give them a buck. Lemmy users don’t like that. (me either)

• Google also makes a lot of money selling ads that are crafted for your likes based on the data they steal from you. Lemmy users also don’t like that (me either).

• Ad blockers will hamper some (not much) of google’s ad revenue so they don’t like them. many users use Ad Blockers ( I use an ad blocking DNS server)

• Recently Google announced that their Chrome browser would not allow ad-blockers because it’s changing the functionality that ad-blockers use (Google sucks, don’t use Google stuff)

So that is why it’s showing up an Lemmy a lot right now.

You've already got some answers, but the recent drama is specifically about a Chromium-centered API, called Web Environment Integrity.

It has been found on a Google engineer's Github account, and iirc it's being tested on Chrome.

It's basically web DRM.

The idea is that the API allows websites to require browsers to guarantee they are unmodified through a "third-party" attester, like Google SafetyNet (or whatever the fuck it got rebranded as) does.

Imagine if you were trying to access a mobile-only website on your PC, by changing your HTTP user agent string;
the website would refuse to serve you the page, and tell you "I don't trust you, are you really a Google Pixel?".
A real Pixel's browser would ask Google Play to vouch for it, and the website would trust Google Play (due to cryptographic shenanigans and whatnot); your browser, however, would not have an attester that:

• is (claiming to be) universally accepted as trustworthy;
• answers "yes, I'm a Google Pixel" on a PC;
• has the necessary cryptographic secrets to work.

That doesn't sound too bad.
But, what if the attester can check your browser's extensions, and tell the website that you're running an adblocker (which is WEI's explicit goal)?
What if it also checks your system's running processes or applications?
What if you ran a debloater script for Windows, and the attester decided that a lack of ads in the start menu was sus?

What if it detected VPN usage? I know some governments that wouldn't like that, I bet they would like it if VPN users would be denied access to half the web...

Don't underestimate people's lack of motivation to switch. Sadly Firefox doesn't come pre-installed on any major phone brands.

I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.

Yes, it's quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don't have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.

Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they're more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.

They're also not even making excuses. They're simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.

Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it's not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they're reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.

Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.

I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.

it's not about how easy it is to install it's that it has to be installed at all. Over here we prefer phones as there's a lot of cheap phones here that only cost less than $100, and since most phones here come preinstalled with chrome, even if firefox is free and all, why go through the hassle of having to go and install it when Chrome's already there?

most people here have a mindset of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" which explains a lot of things wrong in this country.