Contra Chrome: How Google's browser became a threat to privacy and democracy
45 comments
·March 10, 2025dominicrose
giancarlostoro
I mean Amazon was known for refunding almost anything cash wise and not inconveniencing you, selling goods way lower. I guess they played us all. Now I am lucky if Amazons cheaper.
rpastuszak
The comparison to two way mirrors is apt, and I used the same one when talking about social widgets used for mass data collection/ behavioural targeting.
https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/xitterpng-privacy-friendly-...
Come to think of it, Chrome is not much different from a xitter embed circumventing the third party cookie blocking rules.
distalx
The monochromatic color scheme makes it a bit challenging to read. Adding some color variations might help improve readability for those of us with contrast perception issues. Just a thought!
lima
It's impossible to read this without an awful lot of scrolling, even zoomed out...
Tistron
I am so ready to jump back to Firefox, and yet, still here in 2025, I had to go into about:config and fiddle to have it help me autofill CC details, and it doesn't seem like it will remember the CVV for me, unlike chrome. And about:config isn't available on the mobile version, so I can't get that one to auto-fill any CC fields. So, given my choice of using Fx and having to remember my CC-details or take out my cred every time I buy something online, or use Chrome and have things just work smoothly, I'm sad to say that I'll stick with Chrome for now. I don't understand why they can't just make this existing feature work for everyone (it's somehow locked to certain countries that doesn't include Sweden).
And if you think CC info is too sensitive to be remembered by the browser, I consider it a lot less sensitive than many of my passwords which I let it remember. I am assuming they know something about how to store this stuff in a secure way. And residing in the EU I can't even use my CC at places that haven't implemented 2FA for credit cards, like e.g. godaddy last I checked. I need to sign every transaction with my electronic bank id.
Are there other options out there for Browsers that aren't Fx or Chrome? Which one is actually good (technically as well as ethically)?
Timshel
Not to attack OP but when I see comments like those I think we're fucked.
If even on HN peoples care so little for privacy it's no wonder Mozilla could not truly push the privacy angle and are forced to resort to IA crap ...
dietr1ch
We are. I'm knowledgeable, try to take care, and still see a lot of cracks in my privacy efforts and ways I could easily be tracked, so I completely understand how people might just give up.
Kozmik1
Use a password manager, like 1password to securely encrypt and store your secure information, including cc info, so that you don't have to store it in your browser. 1password can fill in your browser fields for you.
hypeatei
> Are there other options out there for Browsers that aren't Fx or Chrome?
Yes, but they aren't ready for use as a daily driver yet. See: Ladybird.
1oooqooq
ff mobile is garbage. not a single contributor uses it.
either get the 'beta' one from the store or the fennec one from fdroid, if you want the real Firefox on Android experience.
it's about time the community abandon Mozilla... so many easy to fix screw ups
SomeHacker44
I use FF as my main driver on Android (phone and tablet) without problems...???
flanked-evergl
If you think someone can only have a good vote if they have a good media diet then you are the threat to democracy.
master-lincoln
Democracy only works with enlightened citizens. Otherwise it's just mob rule.
immibis
Explain how someone with a bad media diet can have a good vote.
Lanolderen
My immediate thought is who decides what a good media diet is if we were to fix it, but anyway..
You don't have to agree with what you watch. Sure, propaganda immunity does not exist but I'm more mellow in my beliefs because I know I'm getting into echochambers. Even people under regimes with media consisting of 100% propaganda can see the real picture. of course at that point you don't have a good vote because you'll end up in a camp but that has little to do with media diet.
latexr
> My immediate thought is who decides what a good media diet is
Which is a valid but separate concern. If we’re only using words like “good” and “bad“ we don’t really need to agree on what those point to for a consensus.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say your health suffers if you eat poorly. In other words, it’s harder to be in good health if your diet is bad. Same thing with media diet and voting: it doesn’t seem controversial to say if your media diet is bad your vote is misinformed.
> I know I'm getting into echochambers.
Good for you. I don’t think that’s true of most people, though. And I’m certain there are people who believe they see the truth when they don’t (false conspiracies).
> Even people under regimes with media consisting of 100% propaganda can see the real picture.
I don’t think that’s true at all. What’s your basis for that opinion?
hello_computer
The fundamental problem is that the browser is too complicated, and thus a natural monopoly. Severing Chrome from Google is simply to pass the peasant-beating stick to Apple. The solution is to cut browser functionality down to a size that more companies (or even individuals) can manage. Even though it’s open-source, googzilla (Google + their “nonprofit” antitrust insurance policy) adds hostilities faster than volunteers can remove them. Things only got this bad because Google has so much power over your visibility on the web. If they say “jump!”, most people are going to respond, “how high?”
jasode
>The solution is to cut browser functionality down to a size that more companies (or even individuals) can manage.
Removing features from browsers isn't a realistic "solution" if the end result is a "minimal browser" that normal users don't want to use. There are many simpler/minimalist web browsers: https://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+open+source+brows...
The common issue with all of them is "some websites don't work with it". This means the minimalist browsers create a tiny self-selected group of hardcore technically savvy users because they are they only ones who are willing to put up with random incompatibilities.
Whatever <X features> you want to hypothetically remove from browsers such that an individual coder can "hold the smaller source code all in their head" -- will create a limited and more "broken" browser from the perspective of normal mainstream web surfers.
fifticon
it is a mega-OS, an application forming an OS on top of the actual OS, and dwarfing said OS. It's like our original OS'ses now form a sort of BIOS :-/, necessary evils to host the 'browser OS'. It is what MS feared in the 1990s.
ethbr1
Anyone who didn't see the browser becoming a VM by the early 00s had their head in the sand.
immibis
The more fundamental problem is that the browser became too complicated because there was only one of them and they only had to consider themselves when adding features.
Exactly like IE before it, but even more extreme. In IE's case, websites avoided IE extensions because they only worked on IE, even when it was the dominant browser.
rob74
(2022)
...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well without Chrome.
miroljub
You used the wrong term. In Germany, they call it "Unsere Demokratie (tm)", which may be tranlated to "Our Democracy (tm)".
You know, it's not a democracy for everyone, it's just a democracy for a small group op people in power with correct opinions and a monopoly on state media.
And indeed, social media, free speech, even elections, not all elections, but elections where people vote for a wrong party, are a threat to Our Democracy(tm).
rob74
Ok, I think I know who you voted for in the last election...
Yeah, sure, you could argue that it's not democratic to keep extreme parties out of power, but there are multiple examples across history of parties coming to power democratically and then destroying democracy from within - it happened in Germany in 1933, in Russia, in Hungary, and it's currently happening in the United States. How to prevent this phenomenon (assuming that you want to prevent it, which of course the people profiting from it don't - see JD Vance's speech at the Munich security conference) is a controversial topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy).
Xelbair
why do you think that unregulated social networks are a threat?
why not all social networks? Frankly being served content at whim of company optimizing profits is as bad. In best case it is a feed optimized to extract as much value from you, while serving you content from bubble that entrenches your beliefs.
In worst case scenario - company is politically motivated in similar vein to lobbying and just pushes views that fit their agenda.
Regulated(censored in opinion of some) or not - the sentiment in society exists, you just hide it from policymakers. It will spread slower, but it will fester and can explode and catch society unaware. Encrypted chats exists, and in worst case people can just talk when they meet up.
Honestly i find all the pushes for censorship to be as bad as loss of democracy - in fact, they are one and the same if you can say only approved things. It is even harder to understand why would you push for that if you come from a country that did suffer from censorship in the past. I personally didn't experience it, but my parents did - and the nightmare stories live on in my generation.
Lets not lie to ourselves - 'regulated', 'hate speech' and other such phrases are doublethink words for 'censorship that we like'. and the problem with social media runs deeper than just 'regulation' - it is an inherent conflict of interests between social media corporation itself and society - the goals of both do not align at all.
and before anyone starts defending this approach - think what happens when your worst enemy gets the same powers you give yourself.
to give example - DOGE works with such powers because one of previous Democract administration created such agency with such overreaching powers.
otabdeveloper4
Let's be honest here, latest developments show that free speech and elections are the biggest threat to democracy.
aucisson_masque
Democracy rely on people being able to vote for those who best represent their interest.
when company sell people's profile and allow political parties to target them with personalized advertisement,
When journalists are allowed to be completely biased that no one trust them anymore,
When fake news are allowed to be spread across social networks without any obstacle,
You remove people's right to make an educated vote on who is best going to represent their interest.
So yeah chrome, Google and other data harvester are part of the problem with some social network and the unregulation of such an important democracy tool that is journalism.
pitkali
Rampant misinformation certainly makes it harder to figure things out, but I disagree that it somehow removes people's right to vote for what's best for them or making an educated vote. I don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful.
Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.
otabdeveloper4
I agree, in the current climate a normal person could never be expected to make the correct choice on what their best interests are. To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here.
contravariant
You mean we should have no free speech or elections to ensure democracy?
wave-function
Sure — as my friend likes to say, "Democracy is the rule of the democrats". Recent developments have proven him right.
Cthulhu_
It's the paradox of tolerance or whatever, we're seeing that free speech and open elections have allowed the intolerant / autocrats to take over and take away those liberties, which implies that in order to have stopped them, they shouldn't have had those rights.
One point of concern is that the idea of free speech has been used by foreign influences to change the opinions of people over the years.
Anyway, counterpoint, unless there was voter fraud etc, democracy allows people to vote against democracy, so if that is the will of the majority, so it goes. Of course, one could argue it wasn't the will of the majority but of a vocal minority, which is the other problem with democracy.
miroljub
Many people in the "Western Civilization" seem to agree with that stance. Sad but true.
otabdeveloper4
That would be the safest way if we don't want Trump or Putin propaganda to win.
xyzal
Free speech does not mean you should be able to spread lies without consequence
immibis
Er, actually it does mean that.
rob74
Free speech? Or free lying?
There was a time when e-commerce was an enjoyable experience from a customer perspective. OK price for OK brands, no delivery issue, no need to contact the after-sales service and if there was a need for it they would do an OK job. Now everything feels fake and dysfunctional, from the brand names, products and marketing that seem to have been created from thin air 2 days ago, to bad delivery service of refusal to refund after an issue. Some companies force you into subscriptions. Some companies let you sell you stuff to others and don't give you the money afterwards.
I stopped buying anything online. The only thing I pay for is the internet access itself. I'm not sure this hurts Google enough though.