Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.
Google even says so for Chromium on its own official page!
This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.
Plus, Google actively creates and pushes for their “standards” via Chrome(ium), which allows them to push for even more surveillance.
This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.
You don’t think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial? What more could you possibly need?
What’s worse is that Vivaldi took an open source browser with a bunch of privacy concerns, added some things and closed the source. And you think it’s somehow less of a cause of concern.
I use 5 different browsers, zero of which are Vivaldi, and thus do not “simp” for Vivaldi. The only “simping” I do is for the truth. The Google hate train is valid but misplaced in this instance.
You don’t think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial?
You’re simply deliberately misreading my comment because what I said is not that it’s unsubstantial, I said that it’s inaccurate. Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks or their respective individual privacy policies’. This statement only pertains to the Chromium web browser.
I can see that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I won’t be engaging with you further. Bye.
Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks
That is not true. I remember several chromium-based browser developers saying for several changes made by google to chromium that they can’t afford the maintenance burden to reverse it.
One instance of that happening is switching the addon framework to manifest v3, which severely degrades the functionality of browser firewalls, like uBlock Origin, by restricting (for “security reasons”, apparently) the amount of network filters they can apply (and maybe with other changes too, I don’t remember it exactly).
But there were also other instances of this happening, which I don’t remember right now. Maybe also when they released the first version with FLoC.
And then I think these 2 (anti)features (even any of them alone) also qualify for invasions of privacy, and they are present in most of the chromium based browsers.
I remember several chromium-based browser developers saying for several changes made by google to chromium that they can’t afford the maintenance burden to reverse it.
…reverse what?
manifest v3
uBlock already solved this issue and still for other browsers it was never a problem in the first place, because they have domain-blocking built into the browser itself.
Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.
Just run WIreshark against your Chromium then. Enjoy.
This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.
Additional Information on Chromium, Google Chrome, and Privacy
Features that communicate with Google made available through the compilation of code in Chromium are subject to the Google Privacy Policy.
There, you have it. Now you can try moving more goalposts again, and provide excuses for them.
This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.
Nah it’s not. I’m talking about Google pushing and implementing IETF standards that hamstring privacy. They are open standards, but they are malicious. That a standard is open doesn’t mean is doing things that are not ethical.
To me, it’s obvious that you don’t even want to look for proof. Why so hell-bent on taking the stance of a state-level billionare corporation built by extracting privacy from users? How do you think they got there?
Or do you have something specific against the legal non-profit organization that is Mozilla?
Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.
This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.
This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.
How hard can you simp for Vivaldi. Jesus Christ.
You don’t think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial? What more could you possibly need?
What’s worse is that Vivaldi took an open source browser with a bunch of privacy concerns, added some things and closed the source. And you think it’s somehow less of a cause of concern.
You’re nuts.
I use 5 different browsers, zero of which are Vivaldi, and thus do not “simp” for Vivaldi. The only “simping” I do is for the truth. The Google hate train is valid but misplaced in this instance.
You’re simply deliberately misreading my comment because what I said is not that it’s unsubstantial, I said that it’s inaccurate. Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks or their respective individual privacy policies’. This statement only pertains to the Chromium web browser.
I can see that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I won’t be engaging with you further. Bye.
That is not true. I remember several chromium-based browser developers saying for several changes made by google to chromium that they can’t afford the maintenance burden to reverse it.
One instance of that happening is switching the addon framework to manifest v3, which severely degrades the functionality of browser firewalls, like uBlock Origin, by restricting (for “security reasons”, apparently) the amount of network filters they can apply (and maybe with other changes too, I don’t remember it exactly).
But there were also other instances of this happening, which I don’t remember right now. Maybe also when they released the first version with FLoC.
And then I think these 2 (anti)features (even any of them alone) also qualify for invasions of privacy, and they are present in most of the chromium based browsers.
…reverse what?
uBlock already solved this issue and still for other browsers it was never a problem in the first place, because they have domain-blocking built into the browser itself.
Know why? Because. They’re. Not. Chrome.
“several changes made by google to chromium”
No, they don’t. They released a lite version that will attempt to do it’s thing in the limited environment of up to date chromium browsers.
(Edit: here are the differences between the normal and this lite version as explained by the developer: https://libreddit.pussthecat.org/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1067als/eli5_ublock_lite_vs_ublock_origin/j3h00xj/?context=3)
And then here is something new that shows how google can not only easily control chroimum based browsers, but basically every other one too, by creating their own definition of “open web”:
Their vision: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md
Users thoughts: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/issues
A specific issue (there are more) where the standpoint of googlers (you are dumb! (does not explain why)) and the users (we don’t want this!) can be clearly seen: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/issues/36
Discussion on lemmy: https://lemmy.blackeco.com/post/25574
Do you really think there is Google telemetry in all chromium based browsers? lol
Just run WIreshark against your Chromium then. Enjoy.
Did you read the link I posted?
Let me copy-paste directly from the Chromium office page for you then:
There, you have it. Now you can try moving more goalposts again, and provide excuses for them.
Nah it’s not. I’m talking about Google pushing and implementing IETF standards that hamstring privacy. They are open standards, but they are malicious. That a standard is open doesn’t mean is doing things that are not ethical.
To me, it’s obvious that you don’t even want to look for proof. Why so hell-bent on taking the stance of a state-level billionare corporation built by extracting privacy from users? How do you think they got there?
Or do you have something specific against the legal non-profit organization that is Mozilla?
To me it’s clear, based on your personal attacks, that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I will not engage with you further. Goodbye.
Personal attacks? Jesus, you are a little cupcake.