The Ars article is a trainwreck of inaccuracies and suppositions. Ron confuses the Topics API with the Privacy Sandbox concept as a whole. This happens in literally the first sentence. He applies...
Exemplary
The Ars article is a trainwreck of inaccuracies and suppositions.
Ron confuses the Topics API with the Privacy Sandbox concept as a whole. This happens in literally the first sentence.
He applies the (now irrelevant) criticisms of FLoC towards Topics
He doesn't explain the legal challenges from UK's CMA. Google legally cannot remove third-party cookies until a replacement is available, and removing third-party cookies has been their stated goal from the start.
Also unmententioned is that this puts Google on an equal playing field with other advertisers. They no longer enjoy their data advantage.
Topics can be disabled. You'll receive a prompt for it when it's first enabled in your browser.
Topics are much better than third-party cookies since they offer greater user control and significantly reduce the scope of user tracking. It's a clear improvement to the status quo. A bit annoying to see hit pieces come out in response.
Ron definitely just writes his articles with his emotions rather than all the correct facts sometimes. I don't mean to discredit him but I remember him doing something similar with an article he...
Ron definitely just writes his articles with his emotions rather than all the correct facts sometimes. I don't mean to discredit him but I remember him doing something similar with an article he wrote about Samsung phones and storage space. The article talks about how much space the "bloatware" on Samsung phones takes up. While bloatware is a problem on Samsung phones, in reality Ron was misunderstanding how Samsung calculates and displays the amount of storage used by each category on your phone. While people called Ron out for his misinformation from day 1, it took him and Ars Technica weeks to put out an update saying they misunderstood things.
Is this an improvement compared to Safari or Firefox, which simply block third-party cookies? Also, why did the CMA not object to those browsers dropping third-party cookies? Safari, at least, has...
Is this an improvement compared to Safari or Firefox, which simply block third-party cookies?
Also, why did the CMA not object to those browsers dropping third-party cookies? Safari, at least, has significant captive market share from iOS—you’d think enough to draw their attention. Was their objection to third-party cookies or to Google’s proposed replacement?
I'll respond to your questions in reverse order: The replacement didn't yet exist when the CA98 investigation was launched in 2021, but their concerns were that their sandbox proposal might be...
I'll respond to your questions in reverse order:
Was their objection to third-party cookies or to Google’s proposed replacement?
Also, why did the CMA not object to those browsers dropping third-party cookies?
I can only assume that's because Apple and Mozilla are not market leaders in ads. Apple has a small position, but their efforts to enter the ads industry have usually failed (see iAds).
Because Google is a market leader in both ads and browsers, they are in a unique position to favour themselves with any technology changes. Part of their agreement is to not use Chrome browser data for advertising. Thus, all advertisers remain on the same playing field. Bear in mind that the CMA is chiefly concerned with market dominance.
Is this an improvement compared to Safari or Firefox, which simply block third-party cookies?
I suppose that depends on your feelings about the current internet. The internet runs on ads right now, and relevancy is a way of increasing their effectiveness. A significant number of businesses - large and small - will be affected by any change to that model. Small businesses are less likely to be able to shift to other revenue streams if ads become less effective for them.
To be clear, this is true of both those placing ads, and those serving them. A small online newspaper may serve ads alongside articles to fund the business, while a small product maker may place ads online to find an audience. I've worked with a number of businesses in the latter category that make 80%+ of their business through ad buys. Word of mouth only gets you so far.
Removing all personalization would not kill the ad market, but it would reduce its effectiveness. I don't know if that's an improvement. I can only say that will have both positive and negative effects for people.
Regardless, the Topics API seems to be trying to straddle that line; offering consumers better privacy and transparency without completely burning down the system.
I'm going to ping @killertofu here too, because they expressed similar concerns.
Somehow I feel like this is where my main gripes lie with Google announcing xyz new technology these days: Even if it ends up being better for consumers at first glance, odds are high it will just...
Because Google is a market leader in both ads and browsers, they are in a unique position to favour themselves with any technology changes. Part of their agreement is to not use Chrome browser data for advertising. Thus, all advertisers remain on the same playing field. Bear in mind that the CMA is chiefly concerned with market dominance.
Is this an improvement compared to Safari or Firefox, which simply block third-party cookies?
I suppose that depends on your feelings about the current internet. The internet runs on ads right now, and relevancy is a way of increasing their effectiveness. A significant number of businesses - large and small - will be affected by any change to that model. Small businesses are less likely to be able to shift to other revenue streams if ads become less effective for them.
To be clear, this is true of both those placing ads, and those serving them. A small online newspaper may serve ads alongside articles to fund the business, while a small product maker may place ads online to find an audience. I've worked with a number of businesses in the latter category that make 80%+ of their business through ad buys. Word of mouth only gets you so far.
Somehow I feel like this is where my main gripes lie with Google announcing xyz new technology these days: Even if it ends up being better for consumers at first glance, odds are high it will just further contribute to Google cementing their universal data advantage-working-on-monopoly*.
In a nutshell, if ads have to exist, I'd prefer to choose small advertising companies staying afloat rather than even more power going to one of like five tech firms.
*And even if it's a truly good offering that doesn't threaten the free web and tech world, it's probably gone in like 3-5 years, so why bother investing time and effort into using it?
Agreed, and thank you for clarifying that. My issue with the pushback here is, Google is just trying to maintain the economics of the free web. They're nakedly self interested in doing so...
Agreed, and thank you for clarifying that. My issue with the pushback here is, Google is just trying to maintain the economics of the free web. They're nakedly self interested in doing so obviously, but dropping third party cookies will take a huge bite out of the ad revenue of both ad techs and publishers (whose content I still want to be available and mostly free). I recognize that having some tools to do interest-based advertising and performance tracking baked into the browser feels a bit icky, but honestly it's a pretty big win over just carrying unique identifiers everywhere in terms of privacy guarantees. Plus, it's much more transparent. I can see exactly what "topics" I'm supposedly interested in, for example.
I very much disagree with you, I would much rather have a sane world where I was not advertised to. If I have to pay for things, so be it. I just looked it up and the annual ad spend per capita in...
I very much disagree with you, I would much rather have a sane world where I was not advertised to. If I have to pay for things, so be it. I just looked it up and the annual ad spend per capita in 2021 was $920.84. That's a bit more than $75 a month. Do you believe that the content you consume is worth that much? Because I certainly do not, and I think all the network effects of advertising - the slow websites, the consumption of bandwidth, the waste of my time and mental energy, etc. - is certainly not worth it either.
This is without even considering that advertising doesn't need to be targeted towards you personally, it could be targeted based on the content it's being delivered with. If I'm reading something about the government, I don't want to be pelted with ads about prescription drugs or restaurants. It makes those ads more distracting and intrusive. I frankly couldn't be bothered the least if personalized advertising was more effective or not, because I find the invasion of my privacy without my consent and the constant pestering for that consent offensive.
There's much stronger language that I'd love to use here, but this isn't the right company for it.
I'm not sure I understand your position here. You say you're willing to pay for content so you don't have to see ads, but you're not willing to pay replacement amount for the advertising you want...
I'm not sure I understand your position here. You say you're willing to pay for content so you don't have to see ads, but you're not willing to pay replacement amount for the advertising you want removed. How do you propose to fund open web content?
I guess one option is that we substantially scale down the web as it is, fund everything that can be sustained by subscriptions directly from users. But the paywalled model is very much not the open web that people have come to expect, and that I think the status quo still has a lot of benefits, regrettably advertisement-littered as it is.
Of that $75/month, how much do you think the content provider actually gets? Advertisements involve payments to many middlemen. There's the advertising agency that makes the ads people see, the...
Of that $75/month, how much do you think the content provider actually gets? Advertisements involve payments to many middlemen. There's the advertising agency that makes the ads people see, the analytics companies that they use to determine their actions, and the advertising market companies like Google who put the ads on the pages. Frankly I have absolutely no respect for any of these middlemen; I think they're a cancer on society that are the primary driver of excessive consumption.
There are many other ways to fund content on the internet including subscriptions, patronage, and indirect funding methods. And while, yes, I am against advertising as a whole, at the moment I'm focused more so on the privacy implications.
If you want a good case study, look at how YouTube channels get funded. Most of them will tell you that they don't make enough money from YouTube ads to fund their channel, so instead they get most of their income from two other sources: sponsorships and Patreon subscriptions. Sponsorships are advertisements, of course, but the main difference is that they are static advertisements that have considerably less data driving the decision and are not individually targeted.
I'd be happy to pay for a universal Web Pass that tracks which websites I've visited in a month and divides that month's subscription fee between them, like Spotify. But right now there's a...
I'd be happy to pay for a universal Web Pass that tracks which websites I've visited in a month and divides that month's subscription fee between them, like Spotify. But right now there's a separate system for every site which creates a lot of mental overhead in managing them and finding/stopping inactive ones while creating new ones, which they see as an advantage in user retention but actually disincentivises me from signing up with any of them.
True, but virtually every funding system is going to take a cut to support its infrastructure, and that cut scales with how complex that underlying infrastructure is. Patreon has a very simple...
True, but virtually every funding system is going to take a cut to support its infrastructure, and that cut scales with how complex that underlying infrastructure is. Patreon has a very simple model, but does not scale smaller than dollars/month. And while I'm a patron of many content creators, I'm not supporting every single blog, news site, podcast, etc that I consume with less regularity or as one-offs. But those things are automatically seeing some returns from my visitation in the form of ad impressions. An equivalent micropayments system that pulls that money directly out of my bank account does not exist and is extremely difficult to build (it's been tried, by Google no less). Although even if it did it's not necessarily clear that that would be inherently better, or at least universally desirable. After all, a model where poor people, students, etc have to stop browsing the internet because their micropayments wallet is low isn't ideal.
The point about YouTube isn't necessarily the whole picture either. Advertising on YouTube pays for YouTube, which is fantastically expensive to run. Creators on YouTube presumably aren't making enough on their Patreons to also pay for video hosting and availability at anywhere near YouTube scale. Not to mention the problem of building an audience for their subscription base and sponsorships in the first place.
Okay, this was the push I needed. I'm already using Firefox on my phone, I was just too lazy to move my gazillion tabs over on my PC, because tab grouping on Firefox just isn't all that great. But...
Okay, this was the push I needed. I'm already using Firefox on my phone, I was just too lazy to move my gazillion tabs over on my PC, because tab grouping on Firefox just isn't all that great. But I moved everything over now and I'm typing this from Firefox. :)
Or if you're a heretic like me, Dustman. It just closes any tab you haven't looked at in a while (you can get it back if it was important, and pinned tabs are exempt). Fact is, if I haven't looked...
Or if you're a heretic like me, Dustman. It just closes any tab you haven't looked at in a while (you can get it back if it was important, and pinned tabs are exempt). Fact is, if I haven't looked at a tab in 20 minutes, it probably wasn't that important, and I'm fine with a timer making that call for me. As a result, I don't even think about tabs--I just open them when I need, do the tasks I need, and let the browser clean up after me. If it closes something that I actually wanted to come back to, I'll occasionally go into its closed list and pull a tab back out, but it's pretty rare.
Fully aware that's not for everyone, and that most people would consider that a downright horrifying way to manage tabs.
That would absolutely break me. There are some tabs I come back to after a few days and am thankful I didn't close down. Especially when I get sent down a researching rabbit hole. My scatterbrain...
That would absolutely break me. There are some tabs I come back to after a few days and am thankful I didn't close down. Especially when I get sent down a researching rabbit hole. My scatterbrain doesn't help in this front.
Same, but I wonder if seeing tabs as temporary wouldn't force me to actually deal with them, instead of just letting them sit there taking up memory and contributing to my overall level of...
Same, but I wonder if seeing tabs as temporary wouldn't force me to actually deal with them, instead of just letting them sit there taking up memory and contributing to my overall level of disarray. Really I should be sending them to Zotero or adding them to my notes, not just letting them sit in the browser.
I can't remember why as it was probably a year so ago when I set mine up, but I chose Sidebery over TreeStyleTabs after looking at both, it was probably something minor which is why I don't...
I can't remember why as it was probably a year so ago when I set mine up, but I chose Sidebery over TreeStyleTabs after looking at both, it was probably something minor which is why I don't remember why. In any case, moving all the tabs to the side and using vertical tabs became a way superior option for me to be able to manage the large number of tabs I had open. I even went to the extent of using registry or some change to remove the tab bar at the top.
I was doing tab grouping in Chrome before I switched to Firefox and tab grouping in Chrome was still a bit unwieldy for me prior to that switch, but vertical tabs is a lot better. Downside is, the allowance for more tabs means I end up with more tabs, so I run up against the limits of my current vertical tab setup sometimes where it begins to feel a little unwieldy.
Removing the top bar is a UserChrome.js tweak, I've got it applied to mine as well - TST could do it natively in older API versions but when Firefox updated to a more system efficient extension...
Removing the top bar is a UserChrome.js tweak, I've got it applied to mine as well - TST could do it natively in older API versions but when Firefox updated to a more system efficient extension API a few years back the ability to dig that deeply into the FF core got deprecated.
Brave's CEO being an anti-LGBT, COVID denying, crypto bro keep me away from their browser. Vivaldi has all the speed/Chromium base of Chrome/Brave with a specific privacy focus and no crypto or...
Brave's CEO being an anti-LGBT, COVID denying, crypto bro keep me away from their browser.
Vivaldi has all the speed/Chromium base of Chrome/Brave with a specific privacy focus and no crypto or (known) jackasses at the helm.
And of course their Binance affiliate link that they just added without notifying you. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology
Also they were injecting affiliate links into urls at some point — https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology I'm never a fan of gamifying...
I'm never a fan of gamifying things and Brave stunk of it (with the crypto aspect and some such) which is why my dalliance with it was short-lived. And subsequently my feelings were confirmed by the stuff mentioned above and other things commenters have mentioned.
Be aware Brave supporters are very much as rabid about it as cryptobros if you're going to diss it online.
I have this problem too but I kinda just live with it so I can avoid Chrome. 99% of the time Firefox is fine, and the other times I have to use Chrome. Isn't Brave also chromium based? So Google...
I have this problem too but I kinda just live with it so I can avoid Chrome. 99% of the time Firefox is fine, and the other times I have to use Chrome. Isn't Brave also chromium based? So Google would still be a controlling party.
This is simply another natural result of the complete apathy and indifference to privacy and control over the software you are running of the majority of population. It is not like this is a new...
This is simply another natural result of the complete apathy and indifference to privacy and control over the software you are running of the majority of population.
It is not like this is a new trend. Any kind of mainstream software was getting very visibly worse since at minimum since the introduction of Windows 10 so a decade now. Not as visibly was going on much longer.
Personally I don't think that switching to Firefox would be onerous. If you absolutely require Chrome, just run it in parallel, very easy. As a side note personally I absolutely despise modern Firefox and decisions they cram into it but it is still immensely better than the alternatives.
This can also be applied to any other software that is problematic. If you need to run them then do so, but a lot of people would be perfectly fine on alternatives that do not have massive long term issues and ramifications.
I remember a Facebook employee telling me years ago that asking someone to download chrome was easier than asking them to install flash (it must have been some pnacl related conversation). Running...
I remember a Facebook employee telling me years ago that asking someone to download chrome was easier than asking them to install flash (it must have been some pnacl related conversation). Running two browsers is trivial for users though (unless one of them isn't made by a billion dollar company, then it's suddenly onerous).
I really don't understand where this resistance comes from. I saw a similar joke on and about Mastodon. To paraphrase: Mastodon: "You don't need a billionaire to legitimize your social media...
Running two browsers is trivial for users though (unless one of them isn't made by a billion dollar company, then it's suddenly onerous).
I really don't understand where this resistance comes from. I saw a similar joke on and about Mastodon. To paraphrase:
Mastodon: "You don't need a billionaire to legitimize your social media platform."
Twitter, Threads, Bluesky users: "Hold up, let us ask our billionaire if that's okay."
It's like that weird effect where people act like it's not okay to like something (e.g. any music outside the Billboard Top 40) until a critical mass of popular culture tells them it's okay to like it. Otherwise it's weird and different and how dare you not be like everyone else.
To be fair, there are legitimate usability issues with many services in the fediverse that are related to them being decentralized. For me, Mastodon sucks because not being able to see the number...
To be fair, there are legitimate usability issues with many services in the fediverse that are related to them being decentralized.
For me, Mastodon sucks because not being able to see the number of likes, comments, and retoots in a timeline view in most interfaces makes it significantly harder to find interesting discussions. It's an intentional design decision that I understand but just don't agree with.
I've seen the same arguments over streaming services and even PC launchers. I don't know when that whole marketing mantra of "there's an app for that" waned away in favor of "everything you want,...
I really don't understand where this resistance comes from.
I've seen the same arguments over streaming services and even PC launchers. I don't know when that whole marketing mantra of "there's an app for that" waned away in favor of "everything you want, all in one place", but there is very much a generational (or gen-feeling) divide between those used to curating their own software and those who want it curated by someone else.
As someone who keeps folders of bookmarks of websites, subs/unsubs to services as I need them one-by-one, and even launches their PC apps from the desktop, I feel like an old man yelling at a cloud at times when I ask why people can't just unsub after a month.
I'm glad Musk endorsed Signal because its extremely difficult to convince people otherwise. I think people don't like the idea they can't keep receipts forever...
I'm glad Musk endorsed Signal because its extremely difficult to convince people otherwise. I think people don't like the idea they can't keep receipts forever...
Mastadon has, what, 10 million user accounts created? Twitter has about 450 million monthly users. Even if you were to assume only 10% of that are real human beings actively engaging with the...
I really don't understand where this resistance comes from
Mastadon has, what, 10 million user accounts created? Twitter has about 450 million monthly users. Even if you were to assume only 10% of that are real human beings actively engaging with the site, that's still an order of magnitude more people participating.
Content creators want to go where viewers are. Viewers want to be where there is content. Until it hits a critical mass, most people aren't going to invest in it.
Running two browsers is trivial as a concept. In actual practice, average users don't want to do anything extra. Half of them are frustrated by digital technology as a baseline state, especially...
Running two browsers is trivial as a concept. In actual practice, average users don't want to do anything extra. Half of them are frustrated by digital technology as a baseline state, especially in a work context where they can't rely entirely hyper-simplified mobile apps.
The psychological relationship many people have with technology is kinda singular and completely counterintuitive for those of us who are comfortable with same.
mostly agreed, but I only wish it was as easy to do when it comes to social media networks. Networking effects feel so insurmountable for a modern forum, especially since it seems like modern...
If you need to run them then do so, but a lot of people would be perfectly fine on alternatives that do not have massive long term issues and ramifications.
mostly agreed, but I only wish it was as easy to do when it comes to social media networks. Networking effects feel so insurmountable for a modern forum, especially since it seems like modern people don't even want to browse text these days.
I've been using Firefox (actually, Fennec) on my phone for about 2 years now. It's better on lower end phones, it's faster, and my god, how did I live without adblock, a consent popup manager and...
I've been using Firefox (actually, Fennec) on my phone for about 2 years now. It's better on lower end phones, it's faster, and my god, how did I live without adblock, a consent popup manager and dark mode on my phone before? So of course, a while ago, when news came out that Chrome was planning to roll out this new stupid ad platform + was planning to break ad blockers, I installed Firefox on my computer too. Right now, Chrome remains as my default browser, with Firefox on the side allowing me to sync with my phone and just being there as an alternative browser, just in case. Soon enough though, I'll make the full switch and hit the uninstall button on Chrome. Google keeps breaking shit, and I'm not really interested in having to deal with it.
Which happens almost never in my own experience. I legitimately can't remember the last time I had to use a different browser to get something to work. What I do remember is that it wasn't worth...
Which happens almost never in my own experience. I legitimately can't remember the last time I had to use a different browser to get something to work. What I do remember is that it wasn't worth it anyway.
There's a few sites I use (ironically enough, for learning backend development) that either do not run in Firefox ,or offer a degraded experience. For them, I keep Edge on both phone and laptop.
There's a few sites I use (ironically enough, for learning backend development) that either do not run in Firefox ,or offer a degraded experience. For them, I keep Edge on both phone and laptop.
The User-Agent Switcher addon solves most of those sites for me. It's not that they don't work, the website owner just don't want them to work (or some barely noticeable feature is missing/not...
The User-Agent Switcher addon solves most of those sites for me. It's not that they don't work, the website owner just don't want them to work (or some barely noticeable feature is missing/not working, so they're forcing everyone onto their preferred alternative).
I keep a backup browser for the same reason and it does happen like in your examples, but I find it happens very rarely nowadays with most normal browsing to the point I can't remember when it...
I keep a backup browser for the same reason and it does happen like in your examples, but I find it happens very rarely nowadays with most normal browsing to the point I can't remember when it happened last. It's not as common as it was.
Perhaps, but I can't vouch for your experience. The Dutch government websites work perfectly fine on Firefox so I have no issues there either. Banking, governmental, leisure. I can throw anything...
Perhaps, but I can't vouch for your experience. The Dutch government websites work perfectly fine on Firefox so I have no issues there either.
Banking, governmental, leisure. I can throw anything at it and it seems to work fine. Luckily. I don't want to switch to Chrome.
The other commenter mentioned Snapchat, but I don't use that either.
This is my case as well. I have been using Firefox since the IE5 days. NoScript, AdBlocker and recently uBlock Origin have me covered for a much better internet experience. Every time I have to...
This is my case as well. I have been using Firefox since the IE5 days. NoScript, AdBlocker and recently uBlock Origin have me covered for a much better internet experience. Every time I have to use another computer without those things I am both amazed and appalled at the current state of things on the internet.
I still keep Chrome installed since one financial page of mine doesn't like my security settings in Firefox.
It's at that point where I let Edge win. I know it's just Microsoft's spying app based on Google's spying app but Teams calling doesn't work in Firefox so I've got to have it around anyway....
It's at that point where I let Edge win. I know it's just Microsoft's spying app based on Google's spying app but Teams calling doesn't work in Firefox so I've got to have it around anyway.
Though, honestly, even sites that have explicitly told me they don't work with Firefox have worked with it, so other than Teams, I never have to leave my safe, adblocked and containered browser.
Both of the people you responded to mentioned they are using Firefox on their phones; are you comparing apples to apples here? I notice that Firefox tends to perform massively better than Chrome...
Both of the people you responded to mentioned they are using Firefox on their phones; are you comparing apples to apples here? I notice that Firefox tends to perform massively better than Chrome on any device with low memory (and with how heavy websites are and how many tabs people keep open these days, even 8 gigs is on the low side).
Firefox on Android is also notably different from Firefox on iOS. Thanks to Apple's policies, Firefox on iOS is basically a fancy skin on the same rendering engine that Safari uses.
But personally I haven't really noticed any real differences in speed between Firefox and Chrome on memory-rich desktop computers in ages.
Desktop side by sides and Android just by subjective feel one after the other. Firefox vs Brave (not Chrome) I made sure to test commonly used websites with clean wipes so there wasn't any cache....
Desktop side by sides and Android just by subjective feel one after the other. Firefox vs Brave (not Chrome)
I made sure to test commonly used websites with clean wipes so there wasn't any cache.
My desktop is strong with plenty of RAM. Two friends of mine have the same results. Other friends say otherwise. Not sure how that could be.
I even recorded them on desktop for objective timing.
Mine was pretty fast early on, but over time it has degraded, which I'm sure is because of changes I've made and things I've added, and I've felt too lazy to redo it all. Google sites in...
Mine was pretty fast early on, but over time it has degraded, which I'm sure is because of changes I've made and things I've added, and I've felt too lazy to redo it all. Google sites in particular are notoriously slow for me, like Youtube is one I most commonly notice it on, but Sheets, Drive etc. have some slowness to them that they didn't before. It happens on other sites too sometimes, up to and including the whole browser becoming a bit unstable and locking up (I shut my computer down at the end of every day).
But I feel like I could probably fix that slowdown potentially if I wanted, by re-installing, I just don't want to go through with the hassle. Mind you, I've done a lot of things to my browsing experience, including trying to limit canvas fingerprinting, removing top tab bar, adding lots of extensions etc.
Firefox on Android I don't use often because I don't browse on my phone much, but I haven't really noticed any problems with that. I've never used Chrome or anything else on my phone because Firefox gave me the ability to use uBlock Origin, so there's no way any browsers without that can compete.
I haven't used Firefox on my desktop as a daily driver, I was referring to it on Android and yes, it is significantly faster on my 2GB RAM phone and my other phone, a Oneplus Nord. Why is that? I...
I haven't used Firefox on my desktop as a daily driver, I was referring to it on Android and yes, it is significantly faster on my 2GB RAM phone and my other phone, a Oneplus Nord. Why is that? I don't know. Maybe it's just my impression, just thanks to having an ad blocker which removes a lot of bullshit from sites. I mean, the google sites sometimes are a pain in the ass but that's intentional on their part. The rest of the internet works fantastic.
I don't think you're doing anything wrong here. When I first switched to Firefox a few years ago (maybe 2020/2021? can't remember exact year), Firefox felt much slower in comparison. I think it's...
I don't think you're doing anything wrong here. When I first switched to Firefox a few years ago (maybe 2020/2021? can't remember exact year), Firefox felt much slower in comparison. I think it's gotten a bit faster with more use but sometimes it does load sites much slower than Chrome. Doesn't happen often enough to push me to switch again but it's definitely isn't just you.
ah, my bad. should've mentioned i'm making use of this Firefox feature, which I wrote about on the linked thread that lets you add on normal desktop Firefox addons on mobile. Not all of them work...
ah, my bad. should've mentioned i'm making use of this Firefox feature, which I wrote about on the linked thread that lets you add on normal desktop Firefox addons on mobile. Not all of them work too well, but Consent-o-Matic is fantastic and it works extremely well.
Oooh womp womp. Thank you for telling me anyway. I checked out that addon out of curiosity and from the reviews it seems to not be able to grab as many popups as I Don't Care About Cookies. I...
Oooh womp womp. Thank you for telling me anyway. I checked out that addon out of curiosity and from the reviews it seems to not be able to grab as many popups as I Don't Care About Cookies. I think Consent-o-matic is a more complex addon and that's why, since it does let you specify what kind of cookies you want websites to allow, whereas IDCAC, afaik, just clicks accept all.
Chrome now directly tracks users, generates a "topic" list it shares with advertisers.
Don't let Chrome's big redesign distract you from the fact that Chrome's invasive new ad platform, ridiculously branded the "Privacy Sandbox," is also getting a widespread rollout in Chrome today.
If you haven't been following this, this feature will track the web pages you visit and generate a list of advertising topics that it will share with web pages whenever they ask, and it's built directly into the Chrome browser.
It's been in the news previously as "FLoC" and then the "Topics API," and despite widespread opposition from just about every non-advertiser in the world, Google owns Chrome and is one of the world's biggest advertising companies, so this is being railroaded into the production builds.
Users should see a pop-up when they start up Chrome soon, informing them that an "ad privacy" feature has been rolled out to them and enabled. The new pop-up has been hitting users all week.
As you can see in the pop-up, all of Google's documentation about this feature feels like it was written on opposite day, with Google calling the browser-based advertising platform "a significant step on the path towards a fundamentally more private web."
Google says it will block third-party cookies in the second half of 2024—presumably after it makes sure the "Privacy Sandbox" will allow it to keep its profits up.
Did any user in the world want a user tracking and ad platform baked directly into their browser? Probably not, but this is Google, and they control Chrome, and this probably still won't make people switch to Firefox.
So this is the cookie blocking that Google promised a while back? They're just going to block cookies and instead just provide the information that cookies were harvesting.
So this is the cookie blocking that Google promised a while back? They're just going to block cookies and instead just provide the information that cookies were harvesting.
My understanding is that they’re not blocked yet and it won’t start until next year. Here’s a blog post. But yes, this is laying the groundwork for what comes next.
My understanding is that they’re not blocked yet and it won’t start until next year. Here’s a blog post.
But yes, this is laying the groundwork for what comes next.
https://vivaldi.com/blog/news/alert-no-google-topics-in-vivaldi/ This along with a previous post about never doing anything related to Crypto (See Brave) is why I've completely switched off of...
This along with a previous post about never doing anything related to Crypto (See Brave) is why I've completely switched off of Chrome and use Vivaldi (even though it's based off of Chromium).
The thing is that I don't hate Chromium, I just hate Google.
I'm glad they take such a strong stance on this. Vivaldi has become my favorite browser and I really didn't want to switch back to Firefox just because Google is being their usual shitty selves.
I'm glad they take such a strong stance on this. Vivaldi has become my favorite browser and I really didn't want to switch back to Firefox just because Google is being their usual shitty selves.
I've been a happy Vivaldi user for a couple years now though the uptick in heavy-handed changes from upstream (mainly Manifest V3, something Vivaldi has said they will attempt to develop around...
I've been a happy Vivaldi user for a couple years now though the uptick in heavy-handed changes from upstream (mainly Manifest V3, something Vivaldi has said they will attempt to develop around but no promises) are making me feel like I'm just biding time before an eventual move back to firefox.
This is the thing with all the Chromium-based browsers and why I just went to Firefox. Google controls Chromium. Yes, those basing their browsers off Chromium can remove the Google added stuff, or...
This is the thing with all the Chromium-based browsers and why I just went to Firefox. Google controls Chromium. Yes, those basing their browsers off Chromium can remove the Google added stuff, or add back in the Google-removed stuff, or just fork and go independent of Chromium from there on, but the benefits of using Chromium will dissipate and will become a liability. The workarounds will require more resources than those companies can devote to them, and maintaining their own fork completely independent of Chromium from there will likely prove to be the same problem.
I don't know what exactly it is that is causing this, but Mozilla needs to find a way to work with these companies making Chromium based browsers so that they can all pool their resources together to make a strong Chrome alternative, because Chromium isn't it. Look at what Google has done with Android if you think that open source will prevent Google from strong-arming everyone into doing what Google wants.
It has that 2000s-era Opera ethos of customizability but I didn't mess around with it too much and eventually went back to Firefox. It's good if you're into that.
It has that 2000s-era Opera ethos of customizability but I didn't mess around with it too much and eventually went back to Firefox. It's good if you're into that.
It's really configurable and Chromium's performance was refreshing after dealing with what Firefox was 4-5 years ago. What made me switch over was a mixture of Mozilla UI meddling, performance...
It's really configurable and Chromium's performance was refreshing after dealing with what Firefox was 4-5 years ago. What made me switch over was a mixture of Mozilla UI meddling, performance drops, the return of the "white flash" upon page load, profile corruption, and a smattering of other issues that just added up over time. Vivaldi's UI can really be mushed and changed to whatever you need but at the end of the day it's just a chrome reskin with all the issues that come with it.
If Google takes config/build options away for controversial features in their push to kill the tracking industry for everyone but themselves, then all the projects downstream have to fall in line.
I use Vivaldi and was looking for this comment, since I wasn't sure if this affected just Chrome or Chromium as a whole. Glad to see that they're doing the right thing here.
I use Vivaldi and was looking for this comment, since I wasn't sure if this affected just Chrome or Chromium as a whole. Glad to see that they're doing the right thing here.
I remember when Chrome originally came out, I was actually excited about it. It is hard to imagine, today, that Google at the beginning was a company in good standing.
I remember when Chrome originally came out, I was actually excited about it. It is hard to imagine, today, that Google at the beginning was a company in good standing.
I kind of just wish that Konquerer had made it's way into Windows and got popular instead. Konquerer was based on KHTML, which is what WebKit was forked from. At the time it was one of the...
I kind of just wish that Konquerer had made it's way into Windows and got popular instead. Konquerer was based on KHTML, which is what WebKit was forked from. At the time it was one of the prettiest renderers around; I remember that the way it rendered text made it look so much better than anything else out there.
If the internet was going to be owned by giant corporations anyways, I'd have rather it been Opera that came on top. Presto was neat and fast, and their browser always had innovative new features. More importantly Opera was funded by people buying the browser and not by advertising. They were a very different company from the one that has that name today.
I'm very unfamiliar with this and generally pretty distrustful of google, but isn't this a good thing for those of us that don't use Chrome? They're shutting down 3rd party cookies (their data...
I'm very unfamiliar with this and generally pretty distrustful of google, but isn't this a good thing for those of us that don't use Chrome?
They're shutting down 3rd party cookies (their data gathering competition) and essentially just launching their own way of keeping that data coming in. Yes google now has more direct collection of data in Chrome, but the internet will then be forced to abandon 3rd party cookies and make it easier for us to disable them without losing functionality in other non-chrome browsers right? I frankly don't see another way that happens unless one of the big players offer another avenue of data collection that's hopefully better for users.
And as much as a I despise google, I do have more faith in their data practices for the users who continue to use them rather than the thousands of websites and data collection companies using 3rd party cookies to track that data currently. They simply have more eyes on them when it's baked into Chrome.
I suppose the biggest risk I see is that in the future websites could be able to block content for those not using "Topics" in a similar but much more easy to enforce version of anti-adblocker popups? If google ties that enforcement to participation in their ad program I can see how that can enforce data collection widely on the internet, but I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics here to really make that prediction.
I'm looking for thoughts here, I'm not seeing enough technical discussion about specifically why this is actually bad. Though as most people seem to be leaning here: it's Google, so I suppose it probably is.
Call me cynical but it rather feels like Google is just going to do both, unless it figures out it can actively control the advertisement market by blocking 3rd party cookies and make this feature...
Google says it will block third-party cookies in the second half of 2024—presumably after it makes sure the "Privacy Sandbox" will allow it to keep its profits up.
Call me cynical but it rather feels like Google is just going to do both, unless it figures out it can actively control the advertisement market by blocking 3rd party cookies and make this feature 'incorporated' with other services of Google. Or maybe keep both and control the market with 'opt-in' features that are absolutely not mandatory for anyone wanting to use certain features.
When people were starting to use Chrome in favour of IE I was glad people were ditching that shitty piece of software, even though I remained using FireFox. Now I wish they never switched.
Difficult to not feel cynical about Googles actions nowadays. I desperately hope to be proven wrong here though.
Here are the 'Ad topics' from my Chrome settings on Desktop. Arts & Entertainment Computers & Electronics Internet & telecom News Online communities Seems harmless? Someone explain why I should...
Here are the 'Ad topics' from my Chrome settings on Desktop.
Arts & Entertainment
Computers & Electronics
Internet & telecom
News
Online communities
Seems harmless? Someone explain why I should care if advertisers know this, when I’m actually fine with the whole world knowing. It’s technically targeted advertising, but only barely. This isn’t like when you buy something and you see ads for it everywhere.
There are more specific topics Chrome could have picked, but they’re still pretty generic and I guess it didn’t figure that out?
I think these discussions would go better if there were more curiosity and more investigation into how stuff actually works in specific cases. That’s difficult since it’s often so opaque. Even fairly technical users often don’t know how our computers work.
Since I don’t normally look, I’d like to see a log of what ad topics Chrome picked over time, since maybe it’s sometimes different? But that would mean “more tracking” in a way, so maybe instead have a setting for getting an alert when it changes?
My guess is that the alerts would be pretty boring.
Those are yours, but they can get quite a bit more specific. In the "evolution from FLoC" chapter, it's claimed that they were chosen to avoid sensitive subjects, but comparing the V1 taxonomy...
Those are yours, but they can get quite a bit more specific. In the "evolution from FLoC" chapter, it's claimed that they were chosen to avoid sensitive subjects, but comparing the V1 taxonomy found in the same repo with the V2 one makes me think that is not going to hold. One example V2 topic I don't like is "/Law & Government/Labor & Employment Law". If I was an employer that absolutely hated unions, I would probably throw resumes straight into the trash can if someone with that interest submitted them.
Maybe, but I’m doubtful that it would work. I wonder if some of these categories would ever get triggered and who be in them. Who reads about employment law all day? Lawyers, maybe? HR people?...
Maybe, but I’m doubtful that it would work.
I wonder if some of these categories would ever get triggered and who be in them. Who reads about employment law all day? Lawyers, maybe? HR people?
Would that filter work well enough for even an anti-union employer to bother with, or would they just be excluding lawyers and HR people who wouldn’t want that job anyway?
I see that as an absolute win. If I supported Unions (and I do) I definitely wouldn't want to work for such a union-hostile employer. This saves both of us time.
If I was an employer that absolutely hated unions, I would probably throw resumes straight into the trash can if someone with that interest submitted them.
I see that as an absolute win. If I supported Unions (and I do) I definitely wouldn't want to work for such a union-hostile employer. This saves both of us time.
I've never used Chrome. So far anything I read about it makes me glad I didn't trust Google with using their own web browser. Firefox and sometimes Safari for me.
I've never used Chrome. So far anything I read about it makes me glad I didn't trust Google with using their own web browser. Firefox and sometimes Safari for me.
Is Edge, since it's Chromium-based, affected by any of the stuff Chrome is doing? I switched from Chrome to Edge when "New Edge" came out in 2019. Even been using Edge on my iPhone. It's been...
Is Edge, since it's Chromium-based, affected by any of the stuff Chrome is doing? I switched from Chrome to Edge when "New Edge" came out in 2019. Even been using Edge on my iPhone. It's been fine.
I literally just switched both my phone and main PC to Firefox (I'll do the rest later). I've used Firefox in the past a couple times as my main browser, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with it. Though I'm more considering this a trial run at the moment.
Not that Microsoft is much better than Google these days, if at all, but I'm curious if Edge has or will have some of this stuff Chrome is pushing.
At this time, Edges big data suction is telemetry on the user for MSs benefit, not for advertising. You're better off using Edge over Chrome from a user tracking and sale of your data stand point....
At this time, Edges big data suction is telemetry on the user for MSs benefit, not for advertising. You're better off using Edge over Chrome from a user tracking and sale of your data stand point.
I'm not saying it won't come, but MS Edge is still happy with lots of extensions that block ads/cookies/scripts at the moment and I haven't read anywhere that they are changing this, but that may be because I haven't been looking.
This annoyed me enough to get me to fully make the jump to Arc Browser. Really tired of product/ad people at google constantly fucking up what was once a good browser (also pretty much any google...
This annoyed me enough to get me to fully make the jump to Arc Browser. Really tired of product/ad people at google constantly fucking up what was once a good browser (also pretty much any google product eventually goes to shit because of these people)
If you're a Mac user looking to move away from Chrome, and Firefox doesn't feel right for you, I'd highly recommend the Arc browser. From a UX perspective it's fantastic, and ad blocking is one of...
If you're a Mac user looking to move away from Chrome, and Firefox doesn't feel right for you, I'd highly recommend the Arc browser. From a UX perspective it's fantastic, and ad blocking is one of the core ideas of the platform. It's really helped me redefine how I interact with the web and I've really come to enjoy all the ways I can organize my life on the internet.
The Ars article is a trainwreck of inaccuracies and suppositions.
Topics are much better than third-party cookies since they offer greater user control and significantly reduce the scope of user tracking. It's a clear improvement to the status quo. A bit annoying to see hit pieces come out in response.
Ron definitely just writes his articles with his emotions rather than all the correct facts sometimes. I don't mean to discredit him but I remember him doing something similar with an article he wrote about Samsung phones and storage space. The article talks about how much space the "bloatware" on Samsung phones takes up. While bloatware is a problem on Samsung phones, in reality Ron was misunderstanding how Samsung calculates and displays the amount of storage used by each category on your phone. While people called Ron out for his misinformation from day 1, it took him and Ars Technica weeks to put out an update saying they misunderstood things.
Is this an improvement compared to Safari or Firefox, which simply block third-party cookies?
Also, why did the CMA not object to those browsers dropping third-party cookies? Safari, at least, has significant captive market share from iOS—you’d think enough to draw their attention. Was their objection to third-party cookies or to Google’s proposed replacement?
I'll respond to your questions in reverse order:
The replacement didn't yet exist when the CA98 investigation was launched in 2021, but their concerns were that their sandbox proposal might be used to undermine competition in digital advertising, and entrench their market power.
I can only assume that's because Apple and Mozilla are not market leaders in ads. Apple has a small position, but their efforts to enter the ads industry have usually failed (see iAds).
Because Google is a market leader in both ads and browsers, they are in a unique position to favour themselves with any technology changes. Part of their agreement is to not use Chrome browser data for advertising. Thus, all advertisers remain on the same playing field. Bear in mind that the CMA is chiefly concerned with market dominance.
I suppose that depends on your feelings about the current internet. The internet runs on ads right now, and relevancy is a way of increasing their effectiveness. A significant number of businesses - large and small - will be affected by any change to that model. Small businesses are less likely to be able to shift to other revenue streams if ads become less effective for them.
To be clear, this is true of both those placing ads, and those serving them. A small online newspaper may serve ads alongside articles to fund the business, while a small product maker may place ads online to find an audience. I've worked with a number of businesses in the latter category that make 80%+ of their business through ad buys. Word of mouth only gets you so far.
Removing all personalization would not kill the ad market, but it would reduce its effectiveness. I don't know if that's an improvement. I can only say that will have both positive and negative effects for people.
Regardless, the Topics API seems to be trying to straddle that line; offering consumers better privacy and transparency without completely burning down the system.
I'm going to ping @killertofu here too, because they expressed similar concerns.
Somehow I feel like this is where my main gripes lie with Google announcing xyz new technology these days: Even if it ends up being better for consumers at first glance, odds are high it will just further contribute to Google cementing their universal data advantage-working-on-monopoly*.
In a nutshell, if ads have to exist, I'd prefer to choose small advertising companies staying afloat rather than even more power going to one of like five tech firms.
*And even if it's a truly good offering that doesn't threaten the free web and tech world, it's probably gone in like 3-5 years, so why bother investing time and effort into using it?
Agreed, and thank you for clarifying that. My issue with the pushback here is, Google is just trying to maintain the economics of the free web. They're nakedly self interested in doing so obviously, but dropping third party cookies will take a huge bite out of the ad revenue of both ad techs and publishers (whose content I still want to be available and mostly free). I recognize that having some tools to do interest-based advertising and performance tracking baked into the browser feels a bit icky, but honestly it's a pretty big win over just carrying unique identifiers everywhere in terms of privacy guarantees. Plus, it's much more transparent. I can see exactly what "topics" I'm supposedly interested in, for example.
I very much disagree with you, I would much rather have a sane world where I was not advertised to. If I have to pay for things, so be it. I just looked it up and the annual ad spend per capita in 2021 was $920.84. That's a bit more than $75 a month. Do you believe that the content you consume is worth that much? Because I certainly do not, and I think all the network effects of advertising - the slow websites, the consumption of bandwidth, the waste of my time and mental energy, etc. - is certainly not worth it either.
This is without even considering that advertising doesn't need to be targeted towards you personally, it could be targeted based on the content it's being delivered with. If I'm reading something about the government, I don't want to be pelted with ads about prescription drugs or restaurants. It makes those ads more distracting and intrusive. I frankly couldn't be bothered the least if personalized advertising was more effective or not, because I find the invasion of my privacy without my consent and the constant pestering for that consent offensive.
There's much stronger language that I'd love to use here, but this isn't the right company for it.
I'm not sure I understand your position here. You say you're willing to pay for content so you don't have to see ads, but you're not willing to pay replacement amount for the advertising you want removed. How do you propose to fund open web content?
I guess one option is that we substantially scale down the web as it is, fund everything that can be sustained by subscriptions directly from users. But the paywalled model is very much not the open web that people have come to expect, and that I think the status quo still has a lot of benefits, regrettably advertisement-littered as it is.
Of that $75/month, how much do you think the content provider actually gets? Advertisements involve payments to many middlemen. There's the advertising agency that makes the ads people see, the analytics companies that they use to determine their actions, and the advertising market companies like Google who put the ads on the pages. Frankly I have absolutely no respect for any of these middlemen; I think they're a cancer on society that are the primary driver of excessive consumption.
There are many other ways to fund content on the internet including subscriptions, patronage, and indirect funding methods. And while, yes, I am against advertising as a whole, at the moment I'm focused more so on the privacy implications.
If you want a good case study, look at how YouTube channels get funded. Most of them will tell you that they don't make enough money from YouTube ads to fund their channel, so instead they get most of their income from two other sources: sponsorships and Patreon subscriptions. Sponsorships are advertisements, of course, but the main difference is that they are static advertisements that have considerably less data driving the decision and are not individually targeted.
I'd be happy to pay for a universal Web Pass that tracks which websites I've visited in a month and divides that month's subscription fee between them, like Spotify. But right now there's a separate system for every site which creates a lot of mental overhead in managing them and finding/stopping inactive ones while creating new ones, which they see as an advantage in user retention but actually disincentivises me from signing up with any of them.
True, but virtually every funding system is going to take a cut to support its infrastructure, and that cut scales with how complex that underlying infrastructure is. Patreon has a very simple model, but does not scale smaller than dollars/month. And while I'm a patron of many content creators, I'm not supporting every single blog, news site, podcast, etc that I consume with less regularity or as one-offs. But those things are automatically seeing some returns from my visitation in the form of ad impressions. An equivalent micropayments system that pulls that money directly out of my bank account does not exist and is extremely difficult to build (it's been tried, by Google no less). Although even if it did it's not necessarily clear that that would be inherently better, or at least universally desirable. After all, a model where poor people, students, etc have to stop browsing the internet because their micropayments wallet is low isn't ideal.
The point about YouTube isn't necessarily the whole picture either. Advertising on YouTube pays for YouTube, which is fantastically expensive to run. Creators on YouTube presumably aren't making enough on their Patreons to also pay for video hosting and availability at anywhere near YouTube scale. Not to mention the problem of building an audience for their subscription base and sponsorships in the first place.
Okay, this was the push I needed. I'm already using Firefox on my phone, I was just too lazy to move my gazillion tabs over on my PC, because tab grouping on Firefox just isn't all that great. But I moved everything over now and I'm typing this from Firefox. :)
TreeStyleTabs extension. Once you use it you'll never want to go back.
Or if you're a heretic like me, Dustman. It just closes any tab you haven't looked at in a while (you can get it back if it was important, and pinned tabs are exempt). Fact is, if I haven't looked at a tab in 20 minutes, it probably wasn't that important, and I'm fine with a timer making that call for me. As a result, I don't even think about tabs--I just open them when I need, do the tasks I need, and let the browser clean up after me. If it closes something that I actually wanted to come back to, I'll occasionally go into its closed list and pull a tab back out, but it's pretty rare.
Fully aware that's not for everyone, and that most people would consider that a downright horrifying way to manage tabs.
That would absolutely break me. There are some tabs I come back to after a few days and am thankful I didn't close down. Especially when I get sent down a researching rabbit hole. My scatterbrain doesn't help in this front.
Yeah as someone in academia that would completely break my research flow.
Same, but I wonder if seeing tabs as temporary wouldn't force me to actually deal with them, instead of just letting them sit there taking up memory and contributing to my overall level of disarray. Really I should be sending them to Zotero or adding them to my notes, not just letting them sit in the browser.
I can't remember why as it was probably a year so ago when I set mine up, but I chose Sidebery over TreeStyleTabs after looking at both, it was probably something minor which is why I don't remember why. In any case, moving all the tabs to the side and using vertical tabs became a way superior option for me to be able to manage the large number of tabs I had open. I even went to the extent of using registry or some change to remove the tab bar at the top.
I was doing tab grouping in Chrome before I switched to Firefox and tab grouping in Chrome was still a bit unwieldy for me prior to that switch, but vertical tabs is a lot better. Downside is, the allowance for more tabs means I end up with more tabs, so I run up against the limits of my current vertical tab setup sometimes where it begins to feel a little unwieldy.
Removing the top bar is a UserChrome.js tweak, I've got it applied to mine as well - TST could do it natively in older API versions but when Firefox updated to a more system efficient extension API a few years back the ability to dig that deeply into the FF core got deprecated.
Yes that is it. I couldn't remember what I did but I knew it wasn't something in the settings accessible within the browser.
Firefox is just so much slower for me. I've done side by side loading test and it's just... obnoxious for me.
Brave is my go to browser.
Brave's CEO being an anti-LGBT, COVID denying, crypto bro keep me away from their browser.
Vivaldi has all the speed/Chromium base of Chrome/Brave with a specific privacy focus and no crypto or (known) jackasses at the helm.
And of course their Binance affiliate link that they just added without notifying you.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology
ungoogled-chromium is maybe the best option for someone that doesn't like Google and also won't use Firefox.
Also they were injecting affiliate links into urls at some point — https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology
I'm never a fan of gamifying things and Brave stunk of it (with the crypto aspect and some such) which is why my dalliance with it was short-lived. And subsequently my feelings were confirmed by the stuff mentioned above and other things commenters have mentioned.
Be aware Brave supporters are very much as rabid about it as cryptobros if you're going to diss it online.
First I've seen about it was this thread. I'll likely check it out.
Definitely not a fan of Braves CEO.
I have this problem too but I kinda just live with it so I can avoid Chrome. 99% of the time Firefox is fine, and the other times I have to use Chrome. Isn't Brave also chromium based? So Google would still be a controlling party.
This is simply another natural result of the complete apathy and indifference to privacy and control over the software you are running of the majority of population.
It is not like this is a new trend. Any kind of mainstream software was getting very visibly worse since at minimum since the introduction of Windows 10 so a decade now. Not as visibly was going on much longer.
Personally I don't think that switching to Firefox would be onerous. If you absolutely require Chrome, just run it in parallel, very easy. As a side note personally I absolutely despise modern Firefox and decisions they cram into it but it is still immensely better than the alternatives.
This can also be applied to any other software that is problematic. If you need to run them then do so, but a lot of people would be perfectly fine on alternatives that do not have massive long term issues and ramifications.
I remember a Facebook employee telling me years ago that asking someone to download chrome was easier than asking them to install flash (it must have been some pnacl related conversation). Running two browsers is trivial for users though (unless one of them isn't made by a billion dollar company, then it's suddenly onerous).
I really don't understand where this resistance comes from. I saw a similar joke on and about Mastodon. To paraphrase:
Mastodon: "You don't need a billionaire to legitimize your social media platform."
Twitter, Threads, Bluesky users: "Hold up, let us ask our billionaire if that's okay."
It's like that weird effect where people act like it's not okay to like something (e.g. any music outside the Billboard Top 40) until a critical mass of popular culture tells them it's okay to like it. Otherwise it's weird and different and how dare you not be like everyone else.
To be fair, there are legitimate usability issues with many services in the fediverse that are related to them being decentralized.
For me, Mastodon sucks because not being able to see the number of likes, comments, and retoots in a timeline view in most interfaces makes it significantly harder to find interesting discussions. It's an intentional design decision that I understand but just don't agree with.
I've seen the same arguments over streaming services and even PC launchers. I don't know when that whole marketing mantra of "there's an app for that" waned away in favor of "everything you want, all in one place", but there is very much a generational (or gen-feeling) divide between those used to curating their own software and those who want it curated by someone else.
As someone who keeps folders of bookmarks of websites, subs/unsubs to services as I need them one-by-one, and even launches their PC apps from the desktop, I feel like an old man yelling at a cloud at times when I ask why people can't just unsub after a month.
I'm glad Musk endorsed Signal because its extremely difficult to convince people otherwise. I think people don't like the idea they can't keep receipts forever...
Mastadon has, what, 10 million user accounts created? Twitter has about 450 million monthly users. Even if you were to assume only 10% of that are real human beings actively engaging with the site, that's still an order of magnitude more people participating.
Content creators want to go where viewers are. Viewers want to be where there is content. Until it hits a critical mass, most people aren't going to invest in it.
Running two browsers is trivial as a concept. In actual practice, average users don't want to do anything extra. Half of them are frustrated by digital technology as a baseline state, especially in a work context where they can't rely entirely hyper-simplified mobile apps.
The psychological relationship many people have with technology is kinda singular and completely counterintuitive for those of us who are comfortable with same.
mostly agreed, but I only wish it was as easy to do when it comes to social media networks. Networking effects feel so insurmountable for a modern forum, especially since it seems like modern people don't even want to browse text these days.
I've been using Firefox (actually, Fennec) on my phone for about 2 years now. It's better on lower end phones, it's faster, and my god, how did I live without adblock, a consent popup manager and dark mode on my phone before? So of course, a while ago, when news came out that Chrome was planning to roll out this new stupid ad platform + was planning to break ad blockers, I installed Firefox on my computer too. Right now, Chrome remains as my default browser, with Firefox on the side allowing me to sync with my phone and just being there as an alternative browser, just in case. Soon enough though, I'll make the full switch and hit the uninstall button on Chrome. Google keeps breaking shit, and I'm not really interested in having to deal with it.
I use Firefox completely. I'd still keep a chrome based browser in case you run into a site that doesn't work on Firefox.
Which happens almost never in my own experience. I legitimately can't remember the last time I had to use a different browser to get something to work. What I do remember is that it wasn't worth it anyway.
There's a few sites I use (ironically enough, for learning backend development) that either do not run in Firefox ,or offer a degraded experience. For them, I keep Edge on both phone and laptop.
The User-Agent Switcher addon solves most of those sites for me. It's not that they don't work, the website owner just don't want them to work (or some barely noticeable feature is missing/not working, so they're forcing everyone onto their preferred alternative).
I keep a backup browser for the same reason and it does happen like in your examples, but I find it happens very rarely nowadays with most normal browsing to the point I can't remember when it happened last. It's not as common as it was.
Some will hardcode to not allowing Firefox. Trying to remember what kind of sites do that, government maybe?
Biggest one I can think of right now is Snapchat's new web interface.
Perhaps, but I can't vouch for your experience. The Dutch government websites work perfectly fine on Firefox so I have no issues there either.
Banking, governmental, leisure. I can throw anything at it and it seems to work fine. Luckily. I don't want to switch to Chrome.
The other commenter mentioned Snapchat, but I don't use that either.
This is my case as well. I have been using Firefox since the IE5 days. NoScript, AdBlocker and recently uBlock Origin have me covered for a much better internet experience. Every time I have to use another computer without those things I am both amazed and appalled at the current state of things on the internet.
I still keep Chrome installed since one financial page of mine doesn't like my security settings in Firefox.
It's at that point where I let Edge win. I know it's just Microsoft's spying app based on Google's spying app but Teams calling doesn't work in Firefox so I've got to have it around anyway.
Though, honestly, even sites that have explicitly told me they don't work with Firefox have worked with it, so other than Teams, I never have to leave my safe, adblocked and containered browser.
I see people say Firefox is faster, but that hasn't been my experience. Am I doing something wrong here?
Both of the people you responded to mentioned they are using Firefox on their phones; are you comparing apples to apples here? I notice that Firefox tends to perform massively better than Chrome on any device with low memory (and with how heavy websites are and how many tabs people keep open these days, even 8 gigs is on the low side).
Firefox on Android is also notably different from Firefox on iOS. Thanks to Apple's policies, Firefox on iOS is basically a fancy skin on the same rendering engine that Safari uses.
But personally I haven't really noticed any real differences in speed between Firefox and Chrome on memory-rich desktop computers in ages.
Desktop side by sides and Android just by subjective feel one after the other. Firefox vs Brave (not Chrome)
I made sure to test commonly used websites with clean wipes so there wasn't any cache.
My desktop is strong with plenty of RAM. Two friends of mine have the same results. Other friends say otherwise. Not sure how that could be.
I even recorded them on desktop for objective timing.
Mine was pretty fast early on, but over time it has degraded, which I'm sure is because of changes I've made and things I've added, and I've felt too lazy to redo it all. Google sites in particular are notoriously slow for me, like Youtube is one I most commonly notice it on, but Sheets, Drive etc. have some slowness to them that they didn't before. It happens on other sites too sometimes, up to and including the whole browser becoming a bit unstable and locking up (I shut my computer down at the end of every day).
But I feel like I could probably fix that slowdown potentially if I wanted, by re-installing, I just don't want to go through with the hassle. Mind you, I've done a lot of things to my browsing experience, including trying to limit canvas fingerprinting, removing top tab bar, adding lots of extensions etc.
Firefox on Android I don't use often because I don't browse on my phone much, but I haven't really noticed any problems with that. I've never used Chrome or anything else on my phone because Firefox gave me the ability to use uBlock Origin, so there's no way any browsers without that can compete.
I haven't used Firefox on my desktop as a daily driver, I was referring to it on Android and yes, it is significantly faster on my 2GB RAM phone and my other phone, a Oneplus Nord. Why is that? I don't know. Maybe it's just my impression, just thanks to having an ad blocker which removes a lot of bullshit from sites. I mean, the google sites sometimes are a pain in the ass but that's intentional on their part. The rest of the internet works fantastic.
I don't think you're doing anything wrong here. When I first switched to Firefox a few years ago (maybe 2020/2021? can't remember exact year), Firefox felt much slower in comparison. I think it's gotten a bit faster with more use but sometimes it does load sites much slower than Chrome. Doesn't happen often enough to push me to switch again but it's definitely isn't just you.
Are you using Dark Reader? I've heard it can slow down Firefox for Android significantly.
No idea if it's faster or not, but it's always been a satisfactory speed. I stick with uBlock and Privacy Badger as the only plugins I install.
"a consent popup manager"
Is this a third party extension or did I miss a functionality in the approved addons?
ah, my bad. should've mentioned i'm making use of this Firefox feature, which I wrote about on the linked thread that lets you add on normal desktop Firefox addons on mobile. Not all of them work too well, but Consent-o-Matic is fantastic and it works extremely well.
Oooh womp womp. Thank you for telling me anyway. I checked out that addon out of curiosity and from the reviews it seems to not be able to grab as many popups as I Don't Care About Cookies. I think Consent-o-matic is a more complex addon and that's why, since it does let you specify what kind of cookies you want websites to allow, whereas IDCAC, afaik, just clicks accept all.
Yeah, I have consent-o-matic set to reject all except for the essentials, and it works pretty well most of the time so I'm happy with it.
Ron Amadeo
So this is the cookie blocking that Google promised a while back? They're just going to block cookies and instead just provide the information that cookies were harvesting.
My understanding is that they’re not blocked yet and it won’t start until next year. Here’s a blog post.
But yes, this is laying the groundwork for what comes next.
https://vivaldi.com/blog/news/alert-no-google-topics-in-vivaldi/
This along with a previous post about never doing anything related to Crypto (See Brave) is why I've completely switched off of Chrome and use Vivaldi (even though it's based off of Chromium).
The thing is that I don't hate Chromium, I just hate Google.
I'm glad they take such a strong stance on this. Vivaldi has become my favorite browser and I really didn't want to switch back to Firefox just because Google is being their usual shitty selves.
I've been a happy Vivaldi user for a couple years now though the uptick in heavy-handed changes from upstream (mainly Manifest V3, something Vivaldi has said they will attempt to develop around but no promises) are making me feel like I'm just biding time before an eventual move back to firefox.
This is the thing with all the Chromium-based browsers and why I just went to Firefox. Google controls Chromium. Yes, those basing their browsers off Chromium can remove the Google added stuff, or add back in the Google-removed stuff, or just fork and go independent of Chromium from there on, but the benefits of using Chromium will dissipate and will become a liability. The workarounds will require more resources than those companies can devote to them, and maintaining their own fork completely independent of Chromium from there will likely prove to be the same problem.
I don't know what exactly it is that is causing this, but Mozilla needs to find a way to work with these companies making Chromium based browsers so that they can all pool their resources together to make a strong Chrome alternative, because Chromium isn't it. Look at what Google has done with Android if you think that open source will prevent Google from strong-arming everyone into doing what Google wants.
Is Vivaldi actually good or is it just not Chrome?
It has that 2000s-era Opera ethos of customizability but I didn't mess around with it too much and eventually went back to Firefox. It's good if you're into that.
It's really configurable and Chromium's performance was refreshing after dealing with what Firefox was 4-5 years ago. What made me switch over was a mixture of Mozilla UI meddling, performance drops, the return of the "white flash" upon page load, profile corruption, and a smattering of other issues that just added up over time. Vivaldi's UI can really be mushed and changed to whatever you need but at the end of the day it's just a chrome reskin with all the issues that come with it.
If Google takes config/build options away for controversial features in their push to kill the tracking industry for everyone but themselves, then all the projects downstream have to fall in line.
I use Vivaldi and was looking for this comment, since I wasn't sure if this affected just Chrome or Chromium as a whole. Glad to see that they're doing the right thing here.
tech radar title in contrast: “Chrome's new Privacy Sandbox gives huge privacy boost”
Is this feature also in chromium and is it disable-able?
I remember when Chrome originally came out, I was actually excited about it. It is hard to imagine, today, that Google at the beginning was a company in good standing.
I kind of just wish that Konquerer had made it's way into Windows and got popular instead. Konquerer was based on KHTML, which is what WebKit was forked from. At the time it was one of the prettiest renderers around; I remember that the way it rendered text made it look so much better than anything else out there.
If the internet was going to be owned by giant corporations anyways, I'd have rather it been Opera that came on top. Presto was neat and fast, and their browser always had innovative new features. More importantly Opera was funded by people buying the browser and not by advertising. They were a very different company from the one that has that name today.
Evolve or die. Too many good companies have died out from trying to do the right thing.
I'm very unfamiliar with this and generally pretty distrustful of google, but isn't this a good thing for those of us that don't use Chrome?
They're shutting down 3rd party cookies (their data gathering competition) and essentially just launching their own way of keeping that data coming in. Yes google now has more direct collection of data in Chrome, but the internet will then be forced to abandon 3rd party cookies and make it easier for us to disable them without losing functionality in other non-chrome browsers right? I frankly don't see another way that happens unless one of the big players offer another avenue of data collection that's hopefully better for users.
And as much as a I despise google, I do have more faith in their data practices for the users who continue to use them rather than the thousands of websites and data collection companies using 3rd party cookies to track that data currently. They simply have more eyes on them when it's baked into Chrome.
I suppose the biggest risk I see is that in the future websites could be able to block content for those not using "Topics" in a similar but much more easy to enforce version of anti-adblocker popups? If google ties that enforcement to participation in their ad program I can see how that can enforce data collection widely on the internet, but I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics here to really make that prediction.
I'm looking for thoughts here, I'm not seeing enough technical discussion about specifically why this is actually bad. Though as most people seem to be leaning here: it's Google, so I suppose it probably is.
Call me cynical but it rather feels like Google is just going to do both, unless it figures out it can actively control the advertisement market by blocking 3rd party cookies and make this feature 'incorporated' with other services of Google. Or maybe keep both and control the market with 'opt-in' features that are absolutely not mandatory for anyone wanting to use certain features.
When people were starting to use Chrome in favour of IE I was glad people were ditching that shitty piece of software, even though I remained using FireFox. Now I wish they never switched.
Difficult to not feel cynical about Googles actions nowadays. I desperately hope to be proven wrong here though.
Here are the 'Ad topics' from my Chrome settings on Desktop.
Seems harmless? Someone explain why I should care if advertisers know this, when I’m actually fine with the whole world knowing. It’s technically targeted advertising, but only barely. This isn’t like when you buy something and you see ads for it everywhere.
There are more specific topics Chrome could have picked, but they’re still pretty generic and I guess it didn’t figure that out?
I think these discussions would go better if there were more curiosity and more investigation into how stuff actually works in specific cases. That’s difficult since it’s often so opaque. Even fairly technical users often don’t know how our computers work.
Since I don’t normally look, I’d like to see a log of what ad topics Chrome picked over time, since maybe it’s sometimes different? But that would mean “more tracking” in a way, so maybe instead have a setting for getting an alert when it changes?
My guess is that the alerts would be pretty boring.
Those are yours, but they can get quite a bit more specific. In the "evolution from FLoC" chapter, it's claimed that they were chosen to avoid sensitive subjects, but comparing the V1 taxonomy found in the same repo with the V2 one makes me think that is not going to hold. One example V2 topic I don't like is "/Law & Government/Labor & Employment Law". If I was an employer that absolutely hated unions, I would probably throw resumes straight into the trash can if someone with that interest submitted them.
Google's solution seems to be to lock everything behind an enrollment system managed by Google, which raises a lot of entirely different concerns.
Maybe, but I’m doubtful that it would work.
I wonder if some of these categories would ever get triggered and who be in them. Who reads about employment law all day? Lawyers, maybe? HR people?
Would that filter work well enough for even an anti-union employer to bother with, or would they just be excluding lawyers and HR people who wouldn’t want that job anyway?
I see that as an absolute win. If I supported Unions (and I do) I definitely wouldn't want to work for such a union-hostile employer. This saves both of us time.
I've never used Chrome. So far anything I read about it makes me glad I didn't trust Google with using their own web browser. Firefox and sometimes Safari for me.
Is Edge, since it's Chromium-based, affected by any of the stuff Chrome is doing? I switched from Chrome to Edge when "New Edge" came out in 2019. Even been using Edge on my iPhone. It's been fine.
I literally just switched both my phone and main PC to Firefox (I'll do the rest later). I've used Firefox in the past a couple times as my main browser, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with it. Though I'm more considering this a trial run at the moment.
Not that Microsoft is much better than Google these days, if at all, but I'm curious if Edge has or will have some of this stuff Chrome is pushing.
At this time, Edges big data suction is telemetry on the user for MSs benefit, not for advertising. You're better off using Edge over Chrome from a user tracking and sale of your data stand point.
I'm not saying it won't come, but MS Edge is still happy with lots of extensions that block ads/cookies/scripts at the moment and I haven't read anywhere that they are changing this, but that may be because I haven't been looking.
This annoyed me enough to get me to fully make the jump to Arc Browser. Really tired of product/ad people at google constantly fucking up what was once a good browser (also pretty much any google product eventually goes to shit because of these people)
If you're a Mac user looking to move away from Chrome, and Firefox doesn't feel right for you, I'd highly recommend the Arc browser. From a UX perspective it's fantastic, and ad blocking is one of the core ideas of the platform. It's really helped me redefine how I interact with the web and I've really come to enjoy all the ways I can organize my life on the internet.
Just use Brave.
I've recently switched to opera which I've never used prior to this, and I've been enjoying it