you two put more thought into this conversation than i did that image lol.

right lol.

you’ve had plenty of time to figure your shit out. at this point you’re just slow rolling it as cover hoping it blows over.

which it wont… because jordan will keep causing problems for you lol.

np, i wouldnt worry about it for this website just leave your settings alone until you personally notice an issue. and even then…

Every computer will generate different colors due to driver/os/hardware differences when rendering anything. these differences are often imperceptible to the eye by easily grabbed via browser apis. by randomizing the results just a tad it defeats the trackers.

fingerprinting mechanisms use pixel coloring to help fingerprint you. browsers have implementations that fuzz pixel colors to prevent this fingerprinting often in imperceptible manner. Think shifting pixel alpha values by a random +/- 0.3 values; range was arbitrarily chosen for demonstration purposes.

not really an issue. DPI just increases costs for enforcement and is fairly easily worked around at the application layer. annoying to implement a workaround but not hard. this is the issue with most enforcement mechanisms people try to come up with when dealing with systems, they try to prevent anything they dont like ™ and it just ends up costing them more.

in fact iirc i2p basically helps with this problem just by existing already since it inherently generates a steady stream of data.

They block the ip addresses for the server components of those applications. easily circumvented with a proxy outside of russia. most these communication apps have such proxy support builtin.

The only way ‘apps’ can be banned is if they cut of the internet. soon as you have a data pipe from one end to another you can encrypt whatever you send.

This is why i2p and p2p protocols are so important it makes it infinitely harder to control / ban. you end up having to have a directional whitelist (i.e. you need to only allow outgoing connections from home devices to a specific set of ip), and even then once thats in place… if any of those things allow communication we can push data through them.

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.

Fuck no. Look son i did it! I used fuck on the internet!

i think you’re confused. lol

oh no they’re a statistical normality! the horror! they should feel free to violate this fact at any point. I dont particularly care.

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.

They’re not sensible. They’ve a narrow world view. Shrug life is to short to waste debunking every moronic idea. Plenty has already been written and studied on this concept for people to read up on and learn. I certainly dont have to do it.