• HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How hard can you simp for Vivaldi. Jesus Christ.

    I use 5 different browsers, zero of which are Vivaldi, 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.