I gave examples of the opposite in an earlier comment. Though it’s unclear what level of APIs you refer to here, specially given that you said “same deal with webkit” (which, again, is not under google). You might as well apply the same deal to gecko too.

I do apply the same standard to gecko. and if it every becomes a larger market share I’ll be more critical of it than I already am. However those criticisms are immaterial to the decision this judge had to make.

This is a contradiction. If few browsers will do it, then my statement that it can happen is correct…

its not a contradiction. the difference here is every browser you mentioned as ‘alternatives’ are not well funded dont actively add new functionality in the same way mozilla/google do. they dont actively trying to drive the feature set of the web. apple’s browser is just there to give apple control they dont care about it beyond that, which results in a captured ecosystem on macos. most/all 3rd party browsers use chrome under the hood on other platforms to limit developer costs, resulting in a captured ecosystem by google or are so tiny they’ll never bootstrap effectively (i.e. ladybird). Mozilla has the only non-corporate / user focused implementation of a web browser that is funded.

The point was that the final say on what those projects will do is a decision those projects can make, not Google.

which is completely immaterial when they don’t develop/add new features for the web.

look your argument is ‘other browsers besides firefox exist so its fine if firefox dies’ and mine is ‘they dont provide any real value for the growth of the ecosystem so they’re immaterial when considering the market effects of the only well funded one with a open code base and user focus’

now we can sit here continuing to talk nonsense at each other or just move on. I recommend just moving on. I grew bored with this conversation about 15 posts ago and im basically just responding to you on autopilot.

Google definitely influences the decision, but they can’t dictate it.

it definitely dictates it when you’re talking about things like APIs exposed etc. no one is going to try and maintain core apis if google isnt going to play nice. sorry you’re just wrong on this one. its played out repeatedly in software for decades. same deal with webkit on apple hardware.

The one who ultimately decides whether to update/rebase to the new version of chromium or not; or abandon chromium entirely and maybe use something else, like Webkit, that many other Linux browsers are using

incorrect. very few browsers will go the extra mile for functionality that google is hostile to. firefox is basically the only one simply because they have their own engine. those that hook into blink almost never do anything more than cosmetic simply because the maintenance burden for doing so is too high.

Im not particularly interested in this conversation btw so ill leave you with this:

I put all the chrome based browsers in the same bucket because google has final say in what web standards are basically adopted for chrome and without firefox being entirely independent codebase that alternative is lost.

Thats the important bit. The data collection isnt my worry, its just the main benefit google gets from building the browser and why they did it in the first place.

The judges revenue sharing idea might also mean more money for Firefox since who’s revenue are you sharing? If its the value an individual using firefox brings to google then suddenly thats significantly higher than a flat fee.

oh boy a lot to unpack here. google search is dominant because it used to be the only game in town with reasonable results, its free, and is sufficiently good that most people dont think about alternatives. kagi from the word on the streets is infinitely better than google these days. hence my statement ‘there are better paid search engines.’ I personally havent used google search in 7 years. and there are multiple search engines around that are monetarily sustainable. hilariously chatgpt was the biggest disruption to google search simply because it is a better search engine lol.

chrome is incredibly important to google for the simple reason it allows them to basically dominate the advertising market. you know that thing that enables their decisions on which ad to show you in your search results… yeah that thing. No search engine can replicate that information and compete without implementing two monumental tasks:

• implementing/maintaining a search engine.
• implementing/maintaining a browser.

of the two the browser is the more important one as it influences everything and can track everything a user does. without firefox all that ‘push back’ you mentioned disappears. gnome/kde do not have the resources to maintain a browser. ladybird is too young to be of any importance in the decision by the judge. the rest use blink.

the changes in the browser ecosystem havent shifted in 15 (?) years. most of the market shifts you saw were in the early days before shit ossified (pre 2008). good luck seeing another one for at least another decade.

your experience with google search vs other vendors is likely influenced by your integration with googles ecosystem in some manner. once i managed to get most of google nonsense isolated its search performance crated to be similar to microsofts and duckduckgo. it took a few years for this to occur (data had to be washed out of their predictive algos)

take away chrome and google search’s magic disappears. judge made the right call here, full stop, end of discussion.

Browser monoculture is a worse outcome than googles relatively weak dominance in search. (There are better paid search engines around)

How it spends has nothing to do with pulling from google would cause it to collapse removing the only competition chrome really has. Pretty simple.

Cant prove that and attempting via a legal ruling isnt a sound idea repurcussions are too immediate

Making an exception for mozilla is hardly making an exception for the powerful.

As for how i know this, its pretty basic ecosystem analysis and understanding around how monocultures cause massive issues. Basically every attempt at solving these types problems identifies it as an issue. From capitalism, socialism, ecological studies, medical studies, to social dynamics.

Killing the only non google controlled broswer implementation will cause massive harm, massive harm that this legal case is literally about.

The harm done by disallowing it in this case is greater than the damage by allowing it to continue. Pretty simple.

Dont like it? Help find was to make mozilla independent.

the problem is more that these departments have repeatedly lied about and continued to allow the use of dangerous substances which eroded the trust with the public. This gave individuals like RFK the ounce of truth they needed to undermine them.

‘<minority group X> can totally be researched on without their consent’
‘PFAs are perfectly safe!’ (when used appropriately, and discarded after N years both of which never happen),
‘Mercury fillings are safe!’ (because we can’t actually measure the damage they do accurately enough to decouple it from natural damage, but they’re not actually safe),
‘Weed has no medical uses.’ (because we wouldnt allow it to be studied, turns out its very medically useful).
‘mdma/shrooms have no medical uses!’ (turns out they’re great at treating depression and a host of neurological conditions)
‘artificial food colorings are safe!’ (turns out they’re not and we’ve known it for years)
‘trans fats are safe!’ (they werent).
‘you dont need to wear masks to protect from covid’ (turns out we needed to wear masks)

the list goes on and on. and in each case where we finally got these organizations to do whats best for the american populace at the expense of corporations it has taken a monumental effort despite the data basically being very clear or unambiguously safer alternatives being available.

But each time a person suffers and learns about these things it puts another set of nails in the coffin for whether a randomly selected member of the population trusts them or not leading to people like RFK being able to take advantage of the mistrust.

what you’re seeing now is the end result of these kinds of situations happening repeatedly. The hilarious part is RFK is probably going to accidentally do good over the long term by getting rid of the artificial food coloring finally. and if we successfully avoid this fascist regime from taking root (unlikely at this point given americans passivity) vaccine and such will come roaring back.

I use this guy

🤡

They enshrined the 2nd amendment for a reason. but for now its enough to do simple things like:

• boycott / disrupt any local companies that aid and abed ICE/national guard/armed forces. grocery stores/hotels/restaurants. etc.
• disrupt these peoples ability to sleep.
• repeat the above for any federal agents in your state who are carrying out trumps agenda.

more people reply so I can upvote this thread harder.

It doesn’t fit most peoples usecases. Its why they’re only used by techies. I perfectly understand the utility they provide. Im simply rejecting the premise that such utility needs to be anywhere near as complicated as those systems are to setup

hehe they’re clearly products of their times/ecosystems. I dont judge people for using them. I just shake my head at what people are willing to tolerate when there are far easier mechanisms to find and download. I havent had to go outside of a single tracker atm for my uses so that might be part of it.

sorry bud but those tools just are not that useful. you’re free to disagree of course but there are better torrenting automation tools out there. im of course biased but shrug

No its just not that convenient for the LOE. You know what just requires punching in the title you want? Most private tracker uis. Click download and the client picks up the torrent file from your downloads folder

Fuck retrovibed has an rss feed reader and you can just click bookmark in a trackers ui and it’ll download in the background.

I took one look at the arr stack and noped right the fuck out.

A lot of unnecessary work.

Making it more expensive helps it collapse faster shrug you do you.