As an organisation they have historically been and continue to be, truly shitty.

But what are you using for sources here ?

Depends on what issue they are trying to fix.

Chromium is a problem but it doesn’t seem like that’s what they are trying to address here.

I was talking about the technical monopoly wrt to rendering engines and web standards, Chromium is a problem but it doesn’t seem like that’s what they are trying to address here.

From that article it seems like they might be trying to separate chrome in hopes that that will enable the new owners to “decouple” it from google search.

If that’s the case it’s a dumb move if it’s the only move they make, all that would happen is google would just build the new owners a scrooge mcduck swimming pool to make google the default search. Same thing they do with firefox.

It even says that in the article.

It would be interesting to see how they’d deal with the decoupling of the built in google proprietary panopticon bullshit.

They’d struggle to shift that over to chromium without upsetting…well…everyone.

TL;DR;

They have an effective monopoly and have repeatedly shown they will use it to serve their needs.

One concrete way is the level of control that google has over the inner workings on the rendering engine giving it significant control over web standards.

A real life example fo this is the controversy around the JPEG-XL format, google decides to drop support for it, doing so removes support for every single browser based on the rendering engine in chromium (eventually).

Now, other browsers ( firefox for example) have to decide if it’s worth it to add in and maintain support for a format that will only work in their rendering engine.

Sounds like a win right? now firefox has a feature that chrome doesn’t.

Now, developers/businesses have a choice.

• A: Add/Maintain/Test features that use the JPEG-XL format exclusively, this feature is only available to the Y% of people not using a chromium based browser.
• B: Use some other format that is supported in chrome (and other browser).
• C: Do A with B as a fail-over, adding additional cost to development/maintenance and testing.

In almost all circumstances, B is the fiscally responsible option, which means that google has effective control over web standards and their implementation.

A non rendering engine example is ad-blockers, google decides there are underlying security issues with how some integrations with the web browser works, this “just so happens” to break how almost all decent adblocking is done at a browser level.

They go ahead and create an updated version of the specification that describes how this interaction works, implement this upstream and suddenly all chromium based browsers now can’t use the most effective adblockers.

Technically the downstream browsers could do some shenanigans to keep the ability to block ads effectively , but the technical and monetary barriers to such an endeavour are so high it is absolutely not worth it.

There is more technical nuance to this story, the security issues are real in V2 but the need to break adblockers in process of fixing these issues is debatable.

IIRC there was a film as well, i don’t remember how much of the story was covered though.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314063/

I also can’t vouch for quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmowEQeEMaY

Sure, as i said, i don’t disagree with that.

What does that argument have to do with whether or not people should assigned some responsibility for how they voted (or didn’t) ?

Indeed, i hadn’t considered that.

Yes everyone understands all that. But are you saying we people that vote blue should keep trying the same failing tactics?

No, but if your tactic changes haven’t been implemented by the time voting comes around and the choice remains “nazi’s vs not nazi’s” then you should be voting “not nazi’s”.

“The Dems continue to fuck up repeatedly, so i can understand why people chose nazi this time” isn’t a tenable argument.

I’m not disagreeing with your disappointment in, well, everything.

I’m disagreeing with this part of your previous reply

Anyone else other than literally Nazie’s (aka Trump, JD, the majority of RNC members and leaders, and some of their voters), shouldn’t be blamed.

If a person understands that the choice is nazi vs not nazi and then actively chooses to not vote, they are tacitly choosing nazi.

“If i vote for the not-nazi’s, they won’t understand how disappointed in them i am” is not a good argument.

“Their policies don’t align with what i want” is not a good argument

“They don’t represent my values” is not a good argument

There is no good beginning half to the sentence “< INSERT REASON HERE >, so i tacitly enabled the nazi’s”

Except maybe, “I genuinely believe the alternative is worse, so i tacitly enabled the nazi’s”.

Even then i’d probably disagree, but it would be a substantive argument.

it’s to circumvent systems that flag reposts.

If you don’t have xyz why should I vote for you?

because in an effectively two party system where neither party has xyz you should definitely vote for the party that also aren’t nazi’s ?

The degree of closeness to your ideal of progressive policies doesn’t mean shit when the choice is nazi’s vs not nazi’s.

Unless you are arguing that those weren’t the choices available here ?

D-O

Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?

I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.

How so?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

I’m tempted to say Abed from community (the TV show) the representation could be considered subjectively accurate.

The social situations are a bit contrived though, given it’s focus as a comedy, so it may not be useful as a representation of real life interactions.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d’Aubigny

Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well.

That’s disingenuous at best.

Religion is a problem when it used to push principles on to other people ( specifically when those principles are harmful and unwelcome ), conservative and authoritarian principles happen to lend themselves to this kind of behaviour quite readily which is why you see criticism aimed at those types of religions.

and with startling consistency.

Perhaps it might be worth looking in to why this consistency exists.

It seems like you don’t quite understand how federated services work.

Here’s a quick primer on how you can improve your federated internet experience.

• You can block individual users
  • That will remove posts by them from your feed.
  • All future and historical posts by them will also be removed from your vision.
• If you feel like a community as a whole is allowing behaviour you disagree with you can block that entire community
  • You also have the option of creating your own space with a similar theme, a space that you can police in exactly the way you prefer. ( for example “Video No Politics” )
• In the possible case of disliking the content and/or moderation of an entire instance…you guessed it, you can block that also.
  • Creating your own instance is also a possibility, it can be a bit involved but is certainly possible.
  • Then you have all the control, you can invite your friends, success.

You could also continue to complain about things you can easily fix, that is also an option.

“Their upvote ratio is too damn high”, is an instant classic btw.

Given your replies so far you seem to be looking for something a bit less echo-chambery (or as i suspect a chamber where the echoes are more to your liking)

Luckily this is entirely possible and relatively easily achievable, have fun.