1338
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
1338 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59223 readers
2706 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Agreed. Those other companies don't rely on Google for 80% of their income. That's where the influence occurs.
Can you point to an example of Mozilla bending the knee, in the slightest, on a subject Google would want them to have a different opinion than normal on?
https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/a-dangerous-conflict-of-interest-between-firefox-and-google/
The first explicitly states its conjecture. In reality, it’s much more likely in my mind that Mozilla is not well suited to fast paced changes like the recent YouTube cat and mouse Adblock saga. Imagine if you were waiting not for an extension update, but a browser update.
The second isn’t even about Mozilla. They rely on Google for the anti phishing list. Is there a free and open alternative? I legitimately can’t find one. I can find paid alternatives, but I doubt users would be willing to pay.
I believe these are reasonable examples of slightly bending of Mozillas knee to Google, as requested.
The second one isn’t even Mozilla…
Mozilla chooses to implement Google's phishing list.
The alternative being?
A non Google supplier
Such as?
Like, you’re pretty clear about not using Google. The question is, what service exists that is within their ability to pay (free)?
“They shouldn’t use google” is a fine argument, assuming it’s possible to stop using google without incurring huge fees and/or removing the functionality completely.
Why assume they won't pay?
Even for free they could support something like openphish.com and help it grow and maybe outclass Google.
The point is that we don't know the details of their agreement, nor the unwritten rules to guarantee continued support.
openphish.com would very likely buckle under the load. They’ve had ~2 million urls per day in the past seven days. There are 181 times that many users of Firefox.
Again, I get where you’re coming from. There’s just literally no viable alternative.
Maybe there's no viable alternative because Firefox users are not supplying the demand.
However, rather have the current arrangement than no Firefox. But I suspect that Mozilla are not as free from Google as they would like to be.