this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
168 points (98.3% liked)

Privacy

1329 readers
378 users here now

Protect your privacy in the digital world

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
  2. No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
  3. Stay on topic.
  4. Don't promote big-tech software.
  5. No reposting of news that was already posted. Even from different sources.
  6. No crypto, blockchain, etc.
  7. No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)

Related communities:

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 24 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Google is awful, but any other company that could afford to buy and run Chrome would be worse.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Any alternative is better than letting monopolies stand.

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world -4 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

Sounds a lot like, "Biden & Harris support genocide, so let's vote for Trump."

The spoiler effect doesn't apply in this scenario. We aren't stuck with 2 choices, either Chrome under Google or Chrome under another shitty corporate.

If Chrome enshittifies, we have Firefox, Librewolf, Brave, Ironfox, Waterfox, Ungoogle Chromium, etc...

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 3 points 4 hours ago

Preferring that we enforce our laws regardless of which billionaire benefits is a vote for Trump? I didn't realize that. I've seen the light now. Thank you.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 3 points 4 hours ago

We can't continue selectively enforcing our laws against monopolies. (This is just dark humor. Citizens United is for the express purpose of ensuring that any anti-monopoly law enforcement we get is selective and political, for the rest of however long the US has left.)

[–] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think what they were saying is: two powerful, competing corpos is better than one huge and practically omnipotent corporation, which is what google currently is.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 5 points 5 hours ago

Under normal circumstances, but i just have this suspicion that Musk will buy it using Russian and Saudi funding like was rumored for where he got the funding for Twitter.

So whether that would be a better situation I guess is up to interpretation.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 5 hours ago

That's how blow back works dear...

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 17 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Microsoft Chrome - now with Cortana!

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 13 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Heaven forbid it becomes its own company/a non profit.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Non profit under this US administration who's mantra is what rules? Seems highly optimistic. I see it being more likely that Musk takes the opportunity to try and get the most popular browser and phone OS that is used world wide.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

100% guaranteed Musk is going to try and wrangle a controlling share of Android. Probably Chrome too but definitely Android. He desperately wants to be in your pockets snooping on your text messages and harvesting your contact data.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 2 points 4 hours ago

Yeah seeing how elated he is being an absolute asshole with starlink he must be bursting with joy at the thought of chrome and android in his possession too.