Technology

It's comically perverted and epicly sad that leaders with power in society don't stop this kind of thing.

So your answer to "Google is evil use another browser" is... if we all swap to Firefox google will kill it?

Google is keeping Firefox alive because 5% of all web users using Google search by default is pretty useful for them.

If you want to avoid that, simply use firefox and set your search to DuckDuckGo/Bing. If Google drops them, Microsoft have already shown a want to step up into that position.

Using any chromium fork is supporting chromium as the default browser, and choosing gecko-based browsers means you throw your hat in the ring to show websites that not just chromium browsers visit them. Using a chromium fork also means you accept that google will dictate standards less harmful than web integrity. While it's not the end of the world, the last time this happened IE9 happened. Using Firefox means google can't simply decide to implement any spec they want and that spec becomes true because all user agents have it (exactly what is at risk of happening here. Vivaldi may make nice blog posts but if this ends up happening they'll be happy to implement it else risk losing their entire user base)

The would have been an argument to be made about performance but nowadays blink and gecko are pretty much at the same performance level.

Because they use chromium

Death to chromium forked browsers. Vivaldi is chromium.

Because it's better to support a diversity of web render engines instead to avoid a situation like back in the days with IE.

I have used Vivaldi and even led my kid to use it, but I still always go back to Firefox and/or LibreWolf for peace of mind and extensions like uBlock Origin and Anesidora.

Firefox has officially stated their position on this https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/852

Man that article points out some scary trends. It's just crazy the way they're using digital technology to economically enslave us with subscriptions for product function and maintenance. Then the way they use that technology to monitor us. I saw the end coming with the John Deere business some decades ago. My feeling was I sure hope that practice never comes to normal consumer products, but here it is. It's feudal for sure and a blatant violation of consumer rights. You don't own products anymore and you still get to pay for them like you do.

Not that I disagree, but this is a shit take IMHO. It's always been the case that ads paid for "free" services, but the scale and invasiveness of the ads and data collection has clearly accelerated beyond a reasonable level. They waited until they captured a large enough user base and crowded out enough of their competition before gouging their users for ad revenue. They have the size and reach of a small(or medium-sized, even) nation, the data they are able to collect is a wet dream for any three letter agency.

Just because ads are what make the business model feasible doesn't mean they get a free pass to abuse their market position carte blanche. They should be cut down to size, and not just by user migration.

This is not the users problem. This is googles problem.

If they want to give away a thing for free, then don’t be surprised when people take that thing for free.

Read more about their actual budget.

recurrant subscriptions, Corprate mail hosting, non invasive ads, not double-dipping, notreadimg your mail

It doesnt make all the money, but its not corrupt.