this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)

DeGoogle Yourself

8771 readers
1 users here now

A community for those that would like to get away from Google.

Here you may post anything related to DeGoogling, why we should do it or good software alternatives!

Rules

  1. Be respectful even in disagreement

  2. No advertising unless it is very relevent and justified. Do not do this excessively.

  3. No low value posts / memes. We or you need to learn, or discuss something.

Related communities

!privacyguides@lemmy.one !privacy@lemmy.ml !privatelife@lemmy.ml !linuxphones@lemmy.ml !fossdroid@social.fossware.space !fdroid@lemmy.ml

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blackeco.com/post/25574

And since you won't be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is... interesting to say the least.

It does seem that using Chrome (or Chrome based browsers) is just going to going to perpetuate this. Firefox has never been more important IMHO.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] exohuman@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why tech monopolies are bad. Google waited until they had a near monopoly on the browser engine and then pulls this shit. Alternatives still exist though, and people will vote with their actions by either not using Chrome or not using those websites that have DRM.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I fear the number of sites taking that hit would be so many that we may feel excluded from the web. It feels really dangerous and we need more people on FF asap to make it clear to businesses that this is too costly to be worth it and they're losing a lot of users.

[–] frustbox@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should absolutely have web environment integrity. Your browser should not allow the website to do things that you don't approve of, so the integrity of your computer can be ensured.

Wait, that's not what they mean, is it? Oh no … 🙄

Yea, I feel like Google has this a bit backwards. As always, I like to turn the metaphor on it's head. You're not visiting a website, you're inviting a website. You're allowing the website to use your system resources, bandwidth, CPU cycles, etc. And what you do with your own system is none of the websites business. They can protect their business model on the server side, if they need to. But maybe they just need better business models.

[–] Sanctus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Boosting because this is how we should see websites. You dont visit them you download them. Websites are vampires that must be invited inside to use your system's resources to do whatever it does.

[–] quortez@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Just what the web needed, SafetyNet in your browser. Does anyone have the EFF on speed dial?

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Bug: violation of w3c code of ethics issue was opened 15 hours ago.

It was closed 14 hours ago with the status "completed" without further comment.

The guy who closed it posted an entry a day earlier called "So, you don't like a web platform proposal" on his rarely used blog. It has the appearance of telling people how to critique proposals in a professional way, while being completely dismissive of any communication attempts simultaneously. Perhaps he needs to reflect a little more on his blog entry's subheading "We're all humans", because he doesn't seem keen to address how users who rely on Assistive Technology are going to be able to use his DRM Web.

Edited to add: The code of ethics is for people who work at the W3c, so not entirely applicable anyway.

[–] curryandbeans@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It kinda feels like I’m being chased offline

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Time to bring back Gopher but with blackjack and hookers.

[–] deCorp0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I use Firefox and LibreWolf trying to avoid Chrome based browsers, but doesn’t Mozilla get the majority of the funding for Firefox development from making Google default search? I’ve purchased a few of Firefox’s paid features, VPN, etc hoping that it would contribute to getting them a new business model.

[–] AVeryCleverName@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Who has read The Master Switch by Tim Wu? It's a great book and that essentially argues every mass communication medium started off as a decentralized playground for hobbyists before consolidating into a centralized profit seeking (or profit-seeking-enabling) entity. It the ends with the question of whether the same destiny awaits the internet.

I remember hoping it didn't, and that hope grows harder to maintain by the day. It's so fucking sad.

I just hope that even if this standard is implemented, the protocol maintains enough of it's flexibility for small enclaves of people who still believe in the technology's original vision to "opt out" of it.

[–] Peruvia@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Denuvo for Chrome when?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Google is fucking evil, and they even admitted it when they changed their motto from Don't Be Evil.

[–] mustyOrange@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

The concept of having third party "trusted" attesters just screams abuse, corruption, and data selling. What would their business model be? Direct payments from browser companies? Selling "anonymized" data? What if their data security is crap it just ends up being another vector by which leaks and scams can happen? I doubt the average web user is going to understand that all of their data is going to be going thru some man in the middle when they Google something

What about competition? What if attester A has major ties with Microsoft edge and decide to block Firefox users? Or what about smaller third party apps that are made for accessibility reasons? Or hell - what about startups that are trying to enter the market?

The only reason these attesters would be trusted is because the large companies say they are. Theyd be completely at the whims of Google and Microsoft. What a stupid fucking idea with little upside for the end user

[–] MrMamiya@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Let them burn it down for us.

[–] lntl@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just block ads with a local recursive DNS resolver.

[–] Echo71Niner@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

good suggestion!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yup, it was a cross post. I didn't write that bit. :)

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dang, I liked chrome - ff felt bloated and I could never get into safari. Anything else I could try?

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Firefox is faster than Chrome as of the latest builds.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Never had any issues with speed of any browser, so I don't really get that - bloated mostly in the the sense of UI. But it's also been I think some years since I tried, maybe it's time to try it out again.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bloated is a weird nebulous term. Chrome is bloated because of telemetry. Bloat generally means things in the software that are not needy.

I think clunky is the term you're looking for. I cannot think of what it has in the UI that isn't needed.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago

It's a complete subjective feeling, I switched to chrome because it felt lighter and was easier to synch over several devices. Just checked FF out and it looks very different to the last time I saw it, so I will try it.

I felt similarly until I reinstalled Firefox a few months back because of this. It's actually gotten a lot better imo. I won't be going back to Chrome in any case.