• HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Have you even tried searching for it?

    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.

    • RealHonest@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How hard can you simp for Vivaldi. Jesus Christ.

        I do not use, 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.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • glhf@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you really think there is Google telemetry in all chromium based browsers? lol

    • barryamelton@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      Did you read the link I posted?

      Let me copy-paste directly from the Chromium office page for you then:

      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?

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.