GOOGLE TO IMPOSE BROWSER BASED AD MONOPOLY

[Thehandyman1957]

This was from Jim Stone, 82.221.129.208

If Jim Stone is the author why did you post his IP address?

And Wallstreet Urinal? Pleaeeese.

Due to massive censoring. If you look up his site on Google verbatim it will show you his site. But type in any subject on his site and it will give you nadda. DNS servers are easily controlled to stop you from getting somewhere they don't want you to be. The ip address fixes this issue. Google is not your friend.

As for his opinion on the WSJ. Take it or leave it. People will believe what they want.

[Sajadi]

Even more of a reason for not touching a Chromium based browser, no matter if Chrome, Chromium or some more "independent" Chromium clones like Vivaldi or Brave.

The only right thing to do right now is, if you are using a Chromium based browser either as primary or backup browser... uninstall it! Not only that you would support one of the webs mortal enemies with using a Chromium based browser, even worse, it is a product of a company which is only satisfied when all competition is destroyed and to make it even worse, inflicts their Even more of a reason to not touching a Chromium based browser, no matter if Chromium or some more "independent" Chromium clones like Vivaldi or Brave.

The only right thing to do right now is, if you are using a Chromium based browser either as primary or backup browser... uninstall it! Not only that you would support one of the webs mortal enemies with using a Chromium based browser - it is a product of a company which is only satisfied when all competition is destroyed and to make it even worse, the same company enforces their visions and UI design on other competitors products and is responsible that every product which is not supporting a certain feature and drafts set is getting discriminated!

[Thehandyman1957]

Aaaand, just when you thought it could not get any worse? It did.

Google did not stop there, they decided to make sure they covered all their bases and hit Youtube also.

Take a listen. And I promise, no slurs or bad words here. Just very good commentary on what is going on.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/independ ... isneytube/

[John connor]

This was from Jim Stone, 82.221.129.208

If Jim Stone is the author why did you post his IP address?

And Wallstreet Urinal? Pleaeeese.

Due to massive censoring. If you look up his site on Google verbatim it will show you his site. But type in any subject on his site and it will give you nadda. DNS servers are easily controlled to stop you from getting somewhere they don't want you to be. The ip address fixes this issue. Google is not your friend.

As for his opinion on the WSJ. Take it or leave it. People will believe what they want.

Got it. I thought it was the dude's personal IP address.

[John connor]

Aaaand, just when you thought it could not get any worse? It did.

Google did not stop there, they decided to make sure they covered all their bases and hit Youtube also.

Take a listen. And I promise, no slurs or bad words here. Just very good commentary on what is going on.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/independ ... isneytube/

Ever sense YouTube sold out to Google it turned into a cluster F of epic proportions. My channel looks like crap now and I had a very old video that was about 8 years old that was claimed under copyright due to the music. I HAD TO GO TO COPY RIGHT SCHOOL! Yes, they made me click through all this shit so I could continue to use my account. Unreal.

There was this really funny guy on YouTube called The Guy From Boston, well, YouTube didn't like his political slant and got rid of him. The man was even on Jay Leno for crying out loud!

Google and their crap is just that -- crap! Their browser sucks and their whole damn company. Get this. Their motto is "don't be evil."

[Thehandyman1957]

Yea, I remember that slogan. And I really miss the Youtube of yesterday before Google got it's hands on it.

Man, I wonder how many people even remember those days. Seems like a long time ago.

[gracious1]

The only right thing to do right now is, if you are using a Chromium based browser either as primary or backup browser... uninstall it!
[...]
Not only that you would support one of the webs mortal enemies with using a Chromium based browser - it is a product of a company which is only satisfied when all competition is destroyed and to make it even worse, the same company enforces their visions and UI design on other competitors products and is responsible that every product which is not supporting a certain feature and drafts set is getting discriminated!

I am becoming convinced of this, but I find it hard to convince others.

As an aside.... Although I do not use it anymore, I cannot quite bring myself to delete chromium-browser. Part of it is because it is actually a pain in the !@# to completely remove an installed program and all the little pieces of it that end up in various directories in Linux. Part of it is, sometimes I want to see if a page or site I am having trouble with is rendered differently on the Dark Side. Is that wrong?

Off-topic:
"the Dark Side", yikes. That is what the Mac-users used to call Windoze when I was in college.

[KV-A1]

Even more of a reason for not touching a Chromium based browser, no matter if Chrome, Chromium or some more "independent" Chromium clones like Vivaldi or Brave.

The only right thing to do right now is, if you are using a Chromium based browser either as primary or backup browser... uninstall it!

really? the 'chrome clones' and forks are just as bad?

[Sajadi]

Even more of a reason for not touching a Chromium based browser, no matter if Chrome, Chromium or some more "independent" Chromium clones like Vivaldi or Brave.

The only right thing to do right now is, if you are using a Chromium based browser either as primary or backup browser... uninstall it!

really? the 'chrome clones' and forks are just as bad?

Chromium=Google - That alone says more than enough.

[GreenGeek]

No, it isn't that black and white; there is some gray area. Yes, plain Chromium has too much Google in it for me. The first Chromium based browser that I found somewhat acceptable was Iron. I don't speak the same language as the developer so interaction on the forum was limited, but the browser seemed palatable enough considering the foundation it's built on. Still have it installed (portable) but can't recall last time I ran it. Lately I've been paying more attention to Vivaldi because they say they want to make it like an Opera clone. I am not positive but get the feeling that Vivaldi is less focused on privacy than the Iron developer. I also see some glimmer of hope in Otter and Qupzilla. They are both moving slowly. They aren't built on Chromium, but rather built using the same tools. I can't say I have found any google-spying code executing in either of these, but I am not as familiar with how to monitor the inner workings of these as with Mozilla-based browsers.

[KV-A1]

No, it isn't that black and white; there is some gray area. Yes, plain Chromium has too much Google in it for me. The first Chromium based browser that I found somewhat acceptable was Iron. I don't speak the same language as the developer so interaction on the forum was limited, but the browser seemed palatable enough considering the foundation it's built on. Still have it installed (portable) but can't recall last time I ran it. Lately I've been paying more attention to Vivaldi because they say they want to make it like an Opera clone. I am not positive but get the feeling that Vivaldi is less focused on privacy than the Iron developer. I also see some glimmer of hope in Otter and Qupzilla. They are both moving slowly. They aren't built on Chromium, but rather built using the same tools. I can't say I have found any google-spying code executing in either of these, but I am not as familiar with how to monitor the inner workings of these as with Mozilla-based browsers.

I tried otter a while back but didn't like it very much. I'm looking into Qupzilla now.

Do you know much about Slimjet? I have used it for a while now as a secondary chrome-like-but-not-chrome browser.

[GreenGeek]

Slimjet and most of the others like Brave are too Chrome-ish for me. Slimjet is focused more on speed, whereas I was looking for one that removed as much as possible of Google-site related code. There's only one or two like Iron that make a serious effort to de-google-ify their chromium-based browser (it's like trying to get all links to Mozilla's sites out of PM).

[Fedor2]

O yes "don't be evil, protect man from harm in any means"

Find some time for reading this fiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands

There is described precisely what google are doing.