• FlexibleToast@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    1 year ago

    What, it was a bad idea to give control of how the Internet is rendered to an ad agency? Who could have seen this coming?

    • andrew@lemmy.stuart.funEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      Well obviously it was fine because they had a secret motto not to be evil which is basically impossible to backtrack on.

      Wait, what’s that? They backtracked once it was no longer profitable? 😲

    • Jajcus@kbin.social
      11·
      1 year ago

      Making most of the internet dependent on ad revenue was a bad idea in the first place.

  • nottheengineer@feddit.deEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    Now all we can do is convince as many people as we can to use firefox instead of putting up with this bullshit.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      171·
      1 year ago

      It’s far too late for that, and it won’t work anyway.

      Frankly, this is where regulators are supposed to step in. They won’t, but if it were working as it was intended to work, they’d have stepped in long before now.

      • doppelgangmember@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        1 year ago

        This will probably be another case of the European Union having to save our (the U.S. and others) collective asses from corporate overreach.

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        Waiting for government to act is a recipe for disaster. Governments react to angry people.

        I am under no illusion the challenge we face, but I ain’t going to roll over, I will keep pushing. Give up if you want, but telling everyone to give up and you choose to become a stooge of the oppressors.

      • nottheengineer@feddit.deEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        With that mindset, nothing will ever get accomplished. As Louis Rossmann often says: We, the people, are who can change the culture and that’s what matters most.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          1 year ago

          It’s the only thing that has a chance of working. Us few Firefox users have no chance of weighing in the balance, we’ll just be cast aside. And the US won’t do anything, as usual.

          • spiderman@ani.socialEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            tbh i think other government bodies should follow UN too, as far as i know they have been the only governing body that voices concern whenever tech companies become too greedy.

        • Amju Wolf@pawb.socialEnglish
          7·
          1 year ago

          The EU isn’t some magical force that only does good for privacy. They had their own fair share of scandals and pretty much all regulations regarding privacy and data collection conveniently omit duties and responsibility for governments and such. They just realized that in an information age information is power. And they want that power for themselves and not some large state-like corporations. Which can be a win for us, sometimes, but it’s not a silver bullet.

          This in particular is actually something they might like, because it would allow them to ensure “safe” environment for … whatever they want. With convenient tracking and anything else should they desire so.

        • macniel@feddit.deEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          No, Lobbyist that have money and “good intention” that influence governments are evil. Informed Government officials are actually capable of doing stuff for the citizens.

    • AvailableFill74@lemmy.mlEnglish
      72·
      1 year ago

      You mean the nonprofit company that is dependent completely on a contract with google to stay solvent? Ya, firefox will definitely never be pressured by google… Bruh

  • Kissaki@feddit.deEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    Where’s the “in secret” part?

    You mean because what they proof-of-concepted or drafted privately wasn’t publicly visible 8 days earlier?

    I don’t get it.

  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    Gotta love the open source licences (when we have libre licences). At least Google stand as a good example on why open source licences are not a good option in comparison to free ones (we have BSD vs AT&T too as an example).

    • doppelgangmember@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      How does Google/AT&T stand as an example that free is better than open source? That makes no sense…

      It does encourage informed people to use open source alternatives though.

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        By mentioning AT&T I’m talking about the sue against BSD on 90’s (which started a limbo for a lot of open source software developed at universities). That sue started the free software movement ( that is usually mistaken by open source) and all the *nix derivates. For example foundation of FSF, GPL License, GNU, Linux, etc.

        Then on 20’s Google wanted to implement a similar software development scheme, but with the possibility of making privative any piece of software as they wish without further notice. So they created an open source license (that doesn’t protect the software) and spread the concept around the world.

        Now we get surprised when Google suddenly makes private a part of source code that it’s designed to implement DRM measures on the web. But we knew that this was going to happen.

        We already seen this behavior on the AT&T vs. BSD sue. But well, only humans fall 3 times on the same stone.

        Free software licences were created to solve this problem. Yet their meaning has been forgotten, and companies have spread open source as the “right” movement just because it benefits them, but not the user.