There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Krolan ,

So, Google, the Overlord of the Internet apperantly, wishes to make his Kingdom an uninhabitable hellscape of constant ad harrassment that anyone who wants to keep their sanity will interact with as little as possible, only going there when necessary.

Ok, then. Good luck with that Business.

Just wondering, will one day Humanity, who has pretty much agreed in perfect unison completely independent from each other, since the golden age of television, that we all hate ads, finally be heard?

xmax3 ,

Humanity, who has pretty much agreed […] that we all hate ads

Yeah, I thought that too, but there is a lot of people who find those television ads “so funny” and actually like to watch them. Some naive people (there’s a lot of them) will be perfect preys for this DRM & ads crap.

flustered ,

Don’t blame the engineers. It’s leadership.

stevedidWHAT ,
@stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world avatar

What if the engineer is trying to be a leadership

voluble ,

Can someone shed some light for me? I’m a noob and I’m not sure I understand what is being proposed by google here. From what I can tell, they’re proposing a cryptographically signed token that details information about a website user’s ‘environment’, which I take to mean, their device OS and browser information. Isn’t this sort of information already collected when a user visits a webpage, and doesn’t google (or whomever) already collect and use this data (and more) for fingerprinting? How is this new proposal different, and something to be specifically concerned about?

I know there are anti-fingerprinting browser privacy addons that spoof this information, or prevent its collection. Is the concern that these tools will become inoperable?

For the record I don’t like google or any company collecting any fingerprinting information, but it’s already being done widely and in an unregulated manner, isn’t it?

balance_sheet ,

Using the proposed “Web Environment Integrity” means websites can select on which devices (browsers) they wish to be displayed, and can refuse service to other devices. It binds client side software to a website, creating a silo’d app. Web Environment Integrity on GitHub This penalizes platforms on which the preferred client side software is not available.

From Young-Lord/fight-for-the-open-web.

This will also affect all the Chromium based clients (Chrome, obviously, Brave, Vivaldi…)

USE FIREFOX(Librewolf), PEOPLE. SUPPORT THE OPENWEB

voluble , (edited )

The thought here is that, a website could be programmed to, for example, only be accessible to users of chrome (or even an android device), correct? Other than google itself, why would any website want to do such a thing? Is the idea that google is trying to bring users to chrome, by blocking google services on other browsers? That could be really transformative for the web, because then you’d have microsoft doing the same thing with edge, apple doing the same thing with safari, other companies like fb or whatever launching their own bespoke ‘browsers’ to access their services. Will users actually put up with the degree of fragmentation that this move might bring? Won’t it just push users to the ‘old internet’ where you can simply go to a website and interact with it?

Sorry, I’m kind of talking out loud here trying to wrap my head around this. I see people grousing about DRM and ads, and I’m struggling to connect all the dots.

Kortalh ,

I can’t speak for how other people browse, but when I come across an article with a paywall, I tend to say “eh, it wasn’t that important anyway” and leave. Or if it really is important, I’ll search for the title and try to find the information on a site without a paywall.

If there ends up being a “browser wall”, I’ll certainly do the same thing. No article/web app is so important or unique that it’s worth quitting my preferred browser (Firefox) and switching to something I like less.

But what’s scary to me, as a Firefox user, is that Chrome & Safari are so extremely dominant. If companies are forced to choose between supporting Chrome (60% share), Safari (20% share), or Firefox (3% share), it’s clear that Firefox users will run out of sites to use pretty quickly.

voluble ,

Right, if this sort of browser wall thing happens (which, the doctrine of enshittification seems to dictate that it probably will), and it can’t be spoofed or worked around. Alright, I’m seeing the issues here. Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. This is a huge deal, if it goes in this sort of direction.

elmiar ,

Who’s seeing a pattern here?

YouTube and other platforms increasing ads Meta being Meta Twitter becoming X Reddit fucking API and the platform itself Now, Google coming up with their policies

Are we entering an era where we are silently being forced into becoming customers to these big monopolies, and being under constant surveillance?

Like what the fuck do they want, they already control every fucking thing, what more they want still? What they try to commodify still?

makyo ,

It’s the entshitification of the internet which if you follow Doctorow you already know about. It seems to be spreading to non-web properties now too like obviously cars are trying to lock things behind subscription services.

I think there is a silver lining here and that is federated tech like this site is finally getting some attention as a real alternative to reddit/twitter/etc. Even better would be some real extreme trustbusting as a reaction from our governments but seeing as that would hurt their investments I’m not holding my breath.

makyo ,

This is me too. I mean I have most browsers installed for various reasons but I use Firefox unless I absolutely must use another browser for something. I suppose if things do fragment in the way that is implied above that’ll become more and more common.

boonhet ,

Other than google itself, why would any website want to do such a thing

Web devs can be pretty lazy and only want to support Chrome anyway. If Chrome is the only browser offering certain features (“proof” that user is human, potentially getting rid of adblockers altogether, etc), that’s a good excuse to finally just stop supporting Firefox and Safari.

Ace_of_spades ,

Didn’t Microsoft try and do this with Silverlight back in the day?

SwampYankee ,

Other than google itself, why would any website want to do such a thing? Is the idea that google is trying to bring users to chrome, by blocking google services on other browsers?

Sounds like an open and shut anti-trust case if any governments care to pursue it.

dinckelman ,

Google engineers are making my chances of using a Chromium-based browser (near) impossible

cyborganism ,

“Google engineers want…”

No. Google executives want this to happen. Google’s CEO wants this to happen.

They want to change the internet and remove any little bit of freedom for their own corporate profits.

Fuck “do no evil” Google.

firadin ,

Are the Google executives the ones that are going to write it?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

No, Indian people on H-1B visas desperate for a better life are going to write it.

cyborganism ,

Holy shit. This! ☝️☝️☝️

Chunk ,

Google execs incentivize engineers to build shit by dangling promotions to those who participate.

hak8or ,

Why not both, Google engineers and Google execs? If you’ve ever looked at how Google engineers talk on the Linux kernel mailing lists, and their code in android internals, they tend to have a “we know best” or holier than thou attitude.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this trash also coming from the same kind of Google developers who act like that.

cyborganism ,

These engineers are just trying to keep their job. There’s probably a lead or a manager somewhere in line with upper management involved in this and looking over the developers’ shoulders.

b000urns ,
@b000urns@lemmy.world avatar

Do? No, evil.

rambaroo ,

Google engineers can work anywhere they want. They’re responsible for this shit too. Tech is full of greedy devs with no ethics.

cyborganism ,

That’s a narrow way to view things. Google hires a LOT of people with work visas that tie them to the company.

WingedThing ,
@WingedThing@lemmy.one avatar

What about search engines? DDG and bing suck ass, google is the only of the three that returns results that actually remotely match what I type in.

fje ,

I can recommend qwant.com

solitarius ,

I use search.brave.com, it works for me.

FluffyPotato ,

That used to be the case but now Google is giving me like a page worth of AI generated pages as a result that all have a different answer. DDG is absolutely useless for sites in my native language but for everything else it beats Google.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

DDG works great for me…? Like one out of fifty searches maybe I go “Hmm, bad results, let me try Google,” but it almost always works as well as Google with less noise.

sturmblast ,

They can’t stop dns filters :)

Virulent ,

Yes they can. DNS blocking doesn’t stop YouTube ads, for example. They could also force chrome to use their own DNS servers and use attestation to make sure you’re not bypassing that somehow

Ilikecheese ,

DNS blocking doesn’t stop YouTube ads, for example.

Huh? I was able to block all ads on YouTube on my iPad just by installing a AhaDNS profile.

I’m not saying this doesn’t suck, but I really have faith in people’s desire to get around shit to not be too worried about this. I figure there will always be a way to get around anything Google throws at you, even if it ends up being something as complex as running your own proxy server that ends up receiving the full webpage google wants you to see, stripping out everything you don’t want to see, and just forwarding that to whatever browser you choose. Sure, that’s a little more work than I’d like to put in, but if that’s what it ends up taking, it’s not that much effort.

Compactor9679 ,

Youtube adds? Lol, new pipe baby, havent seen adds in years

Virulent ,

New pipe won’t work anymore if this is implemented

sturmblast ,

I block YouTube ads all the same currently anyway. I also don’t use Chrome…

ThisIsMyLemmyLogin ,
@ThisIsMyLemmyLogin@lemmy.world avatar

I find it disturbing that there are people out there who spend much of their time thinking about new ways to get people to see adverts. Surely it falls under the “bullshit jobs” category that David Graeber once wrote about.

spark947 ,

It’s not just that there are people thinking about it, it’s that this is what our brightest minds in our society are incentivized to think about.

There is a joke in tech circles - if you are smart enough you eventually end up in ad tech. It’s really unhealthy for our society.

HeavyDogFeet ,
@HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world avatar

I hate shitty ads as much as the next person, but you’re ignoring how much of the internet runs on advertising money. Think of all the websites, services, apps, etc that you use that are “free” (read: ad-supported) — without ad revenue, a large percentage of them would be too expensive to run.

I’m not saying ad-tech companies/people are always good, many of them clearly do unethical shit, but the idea that you’re being forced to see ads is kind of crazy. You always have the option to not use ad-supported stuff, it’s just a lot more limiting and expensive.

RubberElectrons ,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

I’m ok with that. The internet was a lot weirder and more interesting when people were creating their own services and sites. We’re on an ad-free, donation-based platform right this very second.

No banks and their policies to answer to, just some regular folks and their weird lemmy servers. You like it? Cool. You don’t? Also cool.

minikieff ,

The double post to demonstrate the weirdness of Lemmy is a nice touch.

RubberElectrons ,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

Whoops. Fixed, hahaha

HeavyDogFeet ,
@HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world avatar

Your point doesn’t make sense. Even back when people where creating their own services and sites (which they still are, it’s not like that has ever stopped) there was still often ad-funding when those things grew to a scale where donations alone couldn’t support them.

And yes, lemmy is ad-free. That’s doesn’t mean the model will work for everything else. Ad-support can be a great way of keeping something accessible and free for people who can’t or won’t pay for it. It’s not always a bad thing.

diyrebel ,

The heart of your stance is apparently that pernicious socially harmful mechanisms are okay as long as they finance something useful. Correct?

Or is it that you don’t see the harms of advertising?

Advertising is a wasteful arms race. Bob may not want to spend money advertising his business, but if Mallory (his competitor) spends money on ads, then Bob is forced to spend money on ads to recover marketshare loss due to Mallory’s ads.

HeavyDogFeet ,
@HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world avatar

That’s a pretty disingenuous interpretation of what I said. But I get it, you don’t like advertising so it has to be completely evil with no redeeming qualities or nuance.

Valmond ,

Oh you talked about the good ads!

Really, I have yet to see an ad that is not just trying to enter your brain with force and malice.

It’s just getting worse too, the “Buy Acme product!” image is now a +100% loudness jump-scare video on auto-pay.

RubberElectrons ,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t know that your counterpoint makes much sense either. Just because the web has devolved into a centralized ad-powered mess doesn’t mean that’s how things should operate. And I do mean mess, consider the many overlapping, sometimes competing rules each advertiser has the right to impose on the location their ads may appear.

I personally consider advertisements to be psychological warfare, an unfortunate requirement for business today. If we allow the “local maximum” that advertising is to fester, the number of spaces and the amount of time occupied by ads pretty much is required to steadily increase.

Let’s just… Not do it. AdBlock, open-source browsers and services to promote privacy, while making it clear that the money to run the servers has to come from somewhere.

I donate to Wikipedia every year. Signal, proton, several git projects… If you can help, please do. If you can’t/won’t, we’ll try to keep the ship moving along anyway.

HeavyDogFeet ,
@HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world avatar

I donate to a bunch of projects and pay for ad-free services too, but that doesn’t mean that all ad-funded things are bad or that all advertising is evil.

Monetisation in general has ruined the internet in many ways, but that extends beyond just ad-based monetisation. Subscriptions, excessive upgrade pricing, in app purchases and dlcs, etc. it all plays a part in the problem, but people like to blame it all on advertising for some because (at least from what I’ve seen) they largely don’t really understand the thing they’re talking about.

RubberElectrons ,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

Erm… I didn’t see where anyone blamed it all on ads alone. Haven’t seen anyone else proselytizing their usage either.

But that’d almost seem like a mischaracterization eh? We’re on the same page, trying to ‘win’ an argument nobody’s having makes one of us look a bit goofy.

Crisps ,

A lot of ads should be banned for environmental reasons alone. From junk mail, lit up signs, eyesore billboards, and all the power wasted in digital ads.

SuperSpruce ,

The big reasons I’m against this is all the side effects. Yes, there will be more ads, but there will also be:

  1. More autoplaying videos on article websites
  2. Increased risk of malware from ads
  3. Decreased competition in the browser space
  4. Decreased competition in the OS space
  5. More tracking and data harvesting
faintedheart ,

Will use firefox until it gets broken into pieces. I would rather stop using the internet other than for necessary situations.

MercuryUprising ,

Yeah, 100%. I would pretty much rather just use whatever underground internet pops up to replace the advertising based one. Advertisements are one of those things that I absolutely cannot stand.

vacuumflower ,

It doesn’t have to be underground at all, they are not yet making ads and DRM parts of TCP.

BorgDrone ,

I don’t trust Mozilla either. They have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they are willing to trade their user’s privacy and security for money. Example 1, Example 2. Both examples show extremely poor judgement from Mozilla. I no longer trust them to put the user first.

For now I’m sticking with Safari. At least there I’m the paying customer, and since I’m already running macOS/iOS I don’t need to trust an additional party.

Jmr ,

They have a similar system. Private Access Tokens

clegko ,
@clegko@lemmy.world avatar

Wow, two very small issues that Mozilla has done and quickly listened to user feedback and walked it back. Totally a legit reason to not use it.

BorgDrone ,

Installing software on your computer without your consent is not a small issue. The fact that they even considered it, let alone let it go into production shows serious problems with their judgement.

Cedarwood ,

For real. Google continues to seriously underestimate my infinite loathing for ads. I will uninternet myself

willow ,
@willow@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

The thing is, Google has been a major donor to Mozilla Foundation from the start. Google has been financially supporting Firefox to deflect the accusations of Chrome being a monopoly.

markon ,

That’s what I’m feeling too. If all the end to end encryption is banned, and the new kid safety act passes here in the US those will just be more nails in the coffin. It’s so sad to me never it’s been a huge part of my life. If it comes to that I’ll miss you all.

vacuumflower ,

I’m not even upset. Yeah, it’s finally clear that it’s not our late 90s and early 00s Web anymore.

So what? What it’s magic was based on wasn’t so technologically or computationally complex, FFS. There’s been plenty of hypertext systems, some distributed. There are some hobbyist ones now, like Gemini again.

I’m looking forward to the niche being filled by better solutions, made after the experience of WWW as it was. It’s amazingly cool.

ThirdNerd ,
@ThirdNerd@lemmy.world avatar

Sites that won’t load unless I them ad-berserker over my web browser I just don’t visit anymore. Seriously. There are a million bazillion web pages out there. The internet managed just fine with people posting pages of relevant links to other similar or recommended other websites back in the Day when Google didn’t even exist yet (I had one myself) and other curated web search sites like https://curlie.org/en (and I contributed link suggestions to the ones like this back then). The only thing we can’t do today that we could back then is run BBS sites for each other off our home land lines. I’m not so worried.

Edit: typo

vacuumflower ,

Hotline and KDX, please

opt9 ,

Google controls way too much. People need to stop using their products. Many people complaining right now are still using Google stuff. If everyone concerned stop using Google stuff, that would cause them to reconsider very quickly.

postmateDumbass ,

Anti trust target.

opt9 ,

I think they are too big for that. They are more powerful than many nation states.

catathreniameh ,

I still find it ironic that I use their products (Pixel) specifically to not use their products (GrapheneOS). Though in the past it was OnePlus with LinageOS.

opt9 ,

It is ironic, but the Pixel is good piece of hardware. So you discard the crap (Google software) and keep what is good (the hardware). That is the way forward. Discard chrome, keep Chromium or Brave for example.

ElvenMithril ,

Firefox you ment, right?; )

opt9 ,

Well I was referring to keeping the good that comes out of Google and discarding the bad. Firefox, actually librewolf is superior but has nothing to do with Google.

void_wanderer ,

I’m genuinely curious. Is it feasible that they maintain their own chromium forks, or will the work become too much if Google keeps inserting more and more crap into it?

opt9 ,

There are already several projects based on Chromium that are very well established such as Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, and Opera. The project will continue just fine without Google if need be. If they all resist the changes together, Google will have a problem. I’m not expecting anything from Microsoft, but the others might.

Korkki ,

Google controls way too much. People need to stop using their products.

At his point it’s like saying stop using the internet. Also most don’t even have the freedom to totally ditch google, since time and effort and knowledge of alternatives are still a scarce resources. Also work and school might be tied to their products. I fear they are too big to fail. This btw why any sort of Open source, crypto, fediverse shit is only the second best option in my option when taking on the tech giants. My preferred option would be total nationalization of big tech platforms and handling them as public utilities. Drop them under some new UN institution and we would golden.

opt9 ,

At his point it’s like saying stop using the internet. No it’s not, there are plenty of very good alternatives. I know because I haven’t used anything Google in years and I fully engage with society. People just have to put in some effort and stop being spoiled babies and whining all the time when everything is not given to them ready to use and free.

My preferred option would be total nationalization of big tech platforms and handling them as public utilities. Sounds good, but you forget that governments in the West are simply employees of the big corps and banks. It would be the same shit, probably worse because now they wouldn’t have to pretend.

Korkki ,

but you forget that governments in the West are simply employees of the big corps and banks.

True, or it’s more like private public blob, with the private part dominating, but better to have nominal democratic and legistlative control than total corporate impunity to make and change the rules as the go and only being limited with nominal legislation by corporate puppet government. Also I mean something trans national, like the UN. obviously just giving all social media to their respective governments would just lead to same problems and wold still just leave the social media sphere into a plaything of US gov, that it is already, (and that why it will never happen because it would require US gov cooperating). But the minimal gain from all this would be that it would be only the government spying on you, not both government and the corporations.

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

If a website stops working because it won’t let you block ads, then THEY’RE the one with the problem, not us. I won’t stop blocking advertising just because some company decides that my home is their place of business and says it’s “not allowed.”

The Internet is designed to route around damage (like the kind of damage caused by companies that try to make parts of it unusable). Folks will create new, open-source browsers, or flock to alternative websites that respect their privacy (and property).

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

Yup. Start by not using Google’s search engine. Use DuckDuckGo, instead.

opt9 ,

Duckduck is definitely a good start, but keep in mind it just anonymizes Google search for you. Brave, Quant, Mojeek and more have indexed their own databases. We need entirely different setups to get around Google’s massive censorship and opinion shaping algos that Duckduck cannot bypass. Searx is also interesting as it allows you to choose from a large list of different search engines.

hak8or ,

How is the experience of using those search engines with their own indexes? At quick glance, brave seems adequate, but would like to know what others think.

opt9 ,

I think they are pretty good, and return some stuff that is censored out of Google and Bing. And if I don’t find what I’m looking for, its very easy to use Bing which is pretty similar to Google. Microsoft is no better than Google, but we can let them serve us when it suits us, rather than the other way around.

ZeekMacard ,
@ZeekMacard@feddit.cl avatar

I thought that Duckduck Go used Bing and the one who anonymizes Google is Start Page, or both do that?

opt9 ,

Its the other way around. Startpage uses Bing.

Liz ,

I’d use Ecosia. Private searching that also plants trees.

www.ecosia.org

LakesLem ,

Trouble is that means using an iPhone. I just came from there. Apple suck in their own unique ways and are no better really.

opt9 ,

iPhone is far from the only alternative out there. There are plenty of de-Googled solutions for Android like LineageOs. If you are more technically inclined, Graphene is superior to iphone in security also. These solutions can make use of the playstore or proxy it through Aurora depending on your personal preferences.

LakesLem ,

At least one of them requires buying a Google phone to install it on :)

In fact probably all decent compatible phones still involve licensing fees to Google in the purchase price, all of the “alternative” OSes still rely on Google to develop the code base that they copy and strip down, etc. The only other one I can think of is Ubuntu phone, which would be so incomplete you might as well carry a dumbphone at that point.

opt9 ,

Yes, the Pixel is a very good piece of hardware once you remove the crap software. If not the Pixel, there are plenty of other phone manufacturers around the world. Purism is another interesting option. Android is an open source project and Google cannot shut it down. There will always be ways. The majority are actually pretty smart and capable, just afraid of change. They wake up at some point though.

Techmaster ,

It’s almost like Google wants me to trade my android phone in on an iphone.

elscallr ,
@elscallr@lemmy.world avatar

You’ll still be using a Chromium based browser. Best bet is to switch to Firefox.

AndyLikesCandy ,

Ah yes use the OTHER chromium based browser!

elscallr ,
@elscallr@lemmy.world avatar

Firefox isn’t Chromium

phillaholic ,

Safari isn’t Chromium based. Chromium’s engine is forked from Safari.

Kidplayer_666 ,

Which itself was forked from KHTML according to wikipedia at least

markon ,

They’ll succeed if they keep it up. My Pixel is the buggiest phone I’ve ever had anyway. I hate a lot of the weird little iPhone restrictions but at this point Android is getting irritating. It should be best on the Pixel but it’s not. All this BS trying to kill the open Internet is just a good reason to cut Google out, especially browser wise and device/OS.

Mdotaut801 ,

I just made the switch to iPhone about 8/9 months ago from android. I told myself I’d never do it but I did and I have 0 regrets. Just got a MacBook as well and everything just ties together beautifully.

transientpunk ,
@transientpunk@sh.itjust.works avatar

Congrats on switching corporate overlords, and going all in on the “new” one

Mdotaut801 , (edited )

It’s a better product imo. Also, didn’t go “all in.” I bought a refurbished iPhone 11 and a 2 year old MacBook…and it’s STILL better for me personally. I still own 2 gaming pcs. Maybe something like that doesn’t work for others, but it does for me. Sorry that you’re so upset because of a brand I chose to switch to out of convenience and annoyance with shitty ad loaded Samsung products or PCs that are jam packed with noticeable bloated garbage out the box. And no, I don’t have time to or want to root an android or fuck around with Linux on my computers. Heaven forbid!!! lol fucking neckbeards thinking everyone needs to do what they’re doing. Are you gonna get mad because I drive certain car brand or wear expensive jeans? Find out next on “How to Please a Neckbeard” only on Lemmy at 9/8 central.

Fylkir ,

Just use a Degoogled Android phone.

Kidplayer_666 ,

Hey! Try using GrapheneOS! It’s a degoogled version of Android! If I’m not mistaken it uses MicroG (google services, but private and open source) instead of google services! It’s specifically made for Pixels! grapheneos.org (I never used it personally, as I do not own a pixel, but I’ve only heard good things about it.

yoz ,

Try Linux phone- Pine64 Its in early stages but supporting them is our best bet

x4740N ,
@x4740N@lemmy.world avatar

Go with a de-googled operating system for android

I wouldn’t personally switch to any Apple device at all because of the Apple being so closed off

traveler01 ,

Even though people on Lemmy hate Elon Musk and what he’s doing to Twitter (there’s a lot of hate against him here, since most people are left leaning), he got the message loud and clear: People are tired of ads and of platforms that eat through our personal data like Google and Meta.

All his actions with Twitter is to steer Twitter away from the advertising system. My guess is, he wants advertising to be a non-essencial source of revenue, hence he switching the name of the platform to X.

My guess is that he’s planning to make a super-app with multiple services, so there will be:

  • X Twitter
  • X Pay
  • X Banking … etc,

These other services will provide the other revenue the platform needs.

Why did I brought this up? It’s because Google and Meta failed to see the message and they’re going on a downward spiral. Google has been trying to charge more and more on subscriptions on YouTube for example, but that’s not nearly enough to cover the percentage of the advertising revenue. And now instead of trying to find new solutions they’re doubling down on advertising revenue strategy by making ad blocking unusable in the most used browser engine.

Zeppo ,
@Zeppo@sh.itjust.works avatar

The “everything app” always comes down to adding financial services. Anything else? Not really. So social networking and videos plus banking. Personally, I think musk is a moron for pursuing this - maybe he hasn’t noticed that it isn’t 2001 anymore and there are plenty of established companies in the field. His actions make his company seem very untrustworthy. Also social networking + banking is a terrible combination. What’s the point? I would never, ever sign up to send payments through “x”.

MonsiuerPatEBrown ,

It was not hilarious when MS tried to control stuff like this with IE.

This is a boring fight, and it is why tech companies need a broken up and a kick in the profits/pants.

LemmyRefugee ,

I think the key is not Firefox but Apple. If Apple does not join the DRM web future, Google cannot force it.

Corgana ,
@Corgana@startrek.website avatar

Unfortunately Apple has a much worse track record than Google when it comes to giving it’s customers control over their own hardware and software.

christian ,
@christian@lemmy.ml avatar

I’m using an android phone because apple doesn’t allow anything like fdroid to exist on iphone.

Auli ,

Apple well support it if the web as a whole does.

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

Well… httptoolkit.com/…/apple-private-access-tokens-att…

seasonone OP ,

Apple has already joined DRN web future. Read Here:- opidea.xyz/post/4785

Widowmaker_Best_Girl ,

Yeah, but fuck if I am ever going to use Apple products when they treat their users like dumbasses who aren’t allowed to own what they buy.

Promptly_Counting ,
@Promptly_Counting@lemmy.world avatar

Bro tried to counter Google with Apple, which is arguably worse.

LemmyRefugee ,

I was talking about number of users, not evil companies.

-sent with my iPhone ultraX

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •