Hacker News Reader

Comment by theptip | Hacker News Reader

But we are not discussing Chromium. Google’s browser is Chrome, and that product has search exclusivity deals that have been deemed monopolistic.

Google could divest the Chrome product and keep contributing to Chromium, but the value proposition is really unclear when that OSS investment doesn’t buy you billions of dollars of browser lock-in value.

View on HN

Thus why the Linux Foundation is gunning for Chromium. (When do we rename the Linux Foundation? Only 3.2% of their revenue goes to Linux development these days...)

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou...

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based...

> Several leading organizations have already pledged their support for the initiative, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera.

Doesn't read like a takeover attempt to me...

Off topic, but why is the Linux Foundation website asking me to allow cookies for "Targeted Advertising"?

My question is, even if they do sell off Chrome, wouldn't Google just create another "Chrome" using the Chromium and use its monopolistic power to push it on everyone? What am I missing here?

It doesn't sound like this would solve the issue..

Presumably part of the court order is that they can't just do the same thing again without suffering the same (or worse) consequences.

Are you assuming the people crafting remedies haven't thought of this? You should tell them immediately!!! LOL. of course they've thought through that and will have a "you can't just rebuild it" clause in the remedy. This isn't hard unless you're trying to make it hard and I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that except to side with Big Tech over consumers trying to muddy the waters and convince others it's all just too darned hard to do anything about so we should let our betters in Big Tech continue dictating our lives.

Forcing Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers to move to Manifest v3, i.e. deleting the ability from the browser to have good adblockers, is incredibly valuable to Google.

I was just forced to switch from uBO to uBO lite because of this. I can't see any difference in behavior, and now the extension doesn't need unlimited permissions.

> CNAME-uncloaking is up to each DNR implementation; no DNR implementation supports this capability at the time of writing.

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com