Hacker News Reader

Comment by soraminazuki | Hacker News Reader

Advocating for the entire browser landscape to be taken over by Chromium is definitely not a middle ground. It's letting the world's largest ad company be the dictator of the web.

View on HN

I never advocated for that. There's nothing saying a fork has to be 100% in sync with upstream and can cherry-pick what parts it wants to keep. Besides that, there's other Blink-based browsers which are very similar but another level removed from Google

Using a fork to work around Google marking addons are malicious seems like a middle ground between "living with ads" and "using a whole new browser the author has political issues with"

Suggesting we all stay on Chrome forks is indeed advocating for Chrome when options exist.

I see I said "Chrome" in the original post but the other poster replied with "Chromium". I intended "Chromium forks and derivatives"

Maybe you consider those just as bad, though

Chrome/Chromium is not a bad browser, and that's not what the commentor you're replying to said. The chromium family all uses a single browser engine. It's bad for the health of the web if everyone uses the same engine. If everyone uses the same engine, any bug, vulnerability, or engine quirk is experienced by EVERYONE if there's only 1 browser.

I don't see the difference. Unless the forks become completely independent, Google will have an outsized influence over them. If Firefox goes down without a replacement independent of Chromium, it'll be the end of the open web.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com