Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AN
Posts
0
Comments
153
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I don't think that's even a conspiracy theory, I think it's obvious that's what they're doing.

    Even for what they offer now; if you already have your payment details registered with "X", then it's a much easier decision to make about paying for a blue tick or editing rights or whatever else.

  • I don't know if I'd count it because I'd consider it part of Fedora, but +1 for Silverblue. I've been playing with it for 3 years and daily driving it for the past year - it's been great seeing it improve during that time and feels like the future.

  • OK, fair enough, I misread your question. Honestly I've not really encountered many websites that don't work on Firefox, less than 1% surely, and when I do I tend to avoid that website. If I can't avoid it I tend to fall back to using GNOME Web (Epiphany), or ungoogled Chromium from Flathub (which I think receives regular updates, I'm not sure what the exploit you're talking about is, should I be worried?).

  • I would be much more happy to give Vivaldi a go if we lived in a world where much more browser diversity existed.

    You’d need a very good reason to not use Firefox given that it’s all that stands against a Google monopoly on web standards. I was using a Chromium-based browser myself until Opera and Microsoft both abandoned their own browser engines - after that I couldn’t possibly justify not supporting Firefox.

    Vivaldi does look very good, and takes me back to the old Opera days when Opera was good. But from a privacy point of view it's just short-sighted to use a chromium-based browser, even if that browser promises and provides privacy.

  • The irony is if they did have non-targeted ads I'd have more good-will towards them and I would be more likely to pay their subscription. But spying on users and being sneaky about it makes me hostile and want to double-down against what they want.

  • You'd need a very good reason to not use Firefox given that it's all that stands against a Google monopoly on web standards. I was using a Chromium-based browser myself until Opera and Microsoft both abandoned their own browser engines - after that I couldn't possibly justify not supporting Firefox.

  • It would have to offer something substantial that can't be done in a browser; the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is maybe some kind of command-line app if there's a demand for it. I think the current UI is fine but the kind of improvements you're looking for might be better for a browser extension like RES.

  • There's always been a weird market for "luxury" tech that's a gold-plated version of what everyone else has. I remember gold-plated pre-smartphone phones that went for ridiculous amounts of money; of course it becomes obsolete, it's targeting those with money but no foresight.

  • I use adblocking software to block surveillance by ad networks, which is needed for security. I would have no problem with a website hosting ads that were more like television ads that were just hosted locally and didn't have user tracking - but Meta aren't offering that option. So while it might be ludicrous to expect online service free of charge without advertising, it's not ludicrous to expect/demand it without spyware.