This doesn’t quite make sense. How does Chrome “control how people view the internet”? Isn’t html/css the main thing that controls how people view the internet?
[ and what ads they see in part through its Chrome browser, which typically uses Google search,]
But it is trivial to change your default search agent right?
Is this move something we should view as a good thing, and if so, then why?
Essentially, everything is Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Brave, Edge etc are chrome.
Most people are using chrome.
Google controlling chrome controls what the vast majority of people use to see the internet, and then they change chrome to make it harder for you to block ads that they want to show.
There’s no reason for chrome to break ad blockers unless it’s owned by an ad company.
Edit: Google done some other shady things by owning it in the past as well.
Chrome has a massive market share and Google abuses that market share by breaking web standards, and pushing people towards Chrome because “the competition doesn’t work”.
They act in bad faith and abuse their position to more deeply entrench their position in anticompetitive monopolistic ways.
Breaking up monopolies is a good thing, and Google arguably holds too much power. Chromium is being used in 70% of browsers, and the decision how to implement and develop web standards are all in the hand of one for profit company, which had little interest in keeping things open and accessible (and private).
What we are forced to assume in turn is that Chrome is built by the professional developers working for an ad agency with the primary goal of building a web browser that serves the needs of other professional developers working for the ad agency’s prospective clients.
To me, I don’t think that should be an issue in anything. That’s up to browser makers. They are able to use whatever they want, and they will use whatever is easiest/best for their usage. They are also free to use WebKit (Safari’s engine), Gecko (Mozilla), or roll their own. This just sounds like you want to punish someone because they made something everyone preferred just because everyone preferred it.
It’s different when you are “forced” to use it (use ours or we won’t let you on our devices, like iOS, or use ours and we will lower/cut our fees for other things you want/need, like many different companies). But when the public is truly free to use what they want and they all want the same thing, then it shouldn’t be used as a reason to punish them.
[Google controls how people view the internet]
This doesn’t quite make sense. How does Chrome “control how people view the internet”? Isn’t html/css the main thing that controls how people view the internet?
[ and what ads they see in part through its Chrome browser, which typically uses Google search,]
But it is trivial to change your default search agent right?
Is this move something we should view as a good thing, and if so, then why?
Essentially, everything is Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Brave, Edge etc are chrome.
Most people are using chrome.
Google controlling chrome controls what the vast majority of people use to see the internet, and then they change chrome to make it harder for you to block ads that they want to show.
There’s no reason for chrome to break ad blockers unless it’s owned by an ad company.
Edit: Google done some other shady things by owning it in the past as well.
Steam, Spotify, Discord. Whoops, all Chromium.
Chrome has a massive market share and Google abuses that market share by breaking web standards, and pushing people towards Chrome because “the competition doesn’t work”.
They act in bad faith and abuse their position to more deeply entrench their position in anticompetitive monopolistic ways.
That’s the Crux of it.
Has this actually happened? Are there examples?
Breaking up monopolies is a good thing, and Google arguably holds too much power. Chromium is being used in 70% of browsers, and the decision how to implement and develop web standards are all in the hand of one for profit company, which had little interest in keeping things open and accessible (and private).
A quote from this Register article sums it up nicely:
To me, I don’t think that should be an issue in anything. That’s up to browser makers. They are able to use whatever they want, and they will use whatever is easiest/best for their usage. They are also free to use WebKit (Safari’s engine), Gecko (Mozilla), or roll their own. This just sounds like you want to punish someone because they made something everyone preferred just because everyone preferred it.
It’s different when you are “forced” to use it (use ours or we won’t let you on our devices, like iOS, or use ours and we will lower/cut our fees for other things you want/need, like many different companies). But when the public is truly free to use what they want and they all want the same thing, then it shouldn’t be used as a reason to punish them.