Gregory's Server
@j2kun goodbye to you and your horrible company 👋
|
12 comments
 @j2kun @thomasfuchs pretty sure the doc IS lying. The motivations and considerations, specifically how they evaluated bad use-cases of this, seems quite disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36781472 I do understand the concerns about editorialized news though, but you are on a microblogging platform not a link aggregator, it is by-design prone to this pattern and Google gets no (love or) exceptions here. @unexpectedteapot "seems disingenuous" or "the authors are naive" is a FAR cry from "IS lying" and "Google is making a concerted effort to kill ad blockers." @j2kun So you don't think Manifest V3 plus a vendor lock-in standard for websites add up to a plausible motivation of restricting ad-block? Either way, the repercussions of this are far more reaching than just affecting ad-block. The HN comment section I previously linked has some insightful comments. @unexpectedteapot I believe Google will continue to enshittify everything. But knowing Google, this has all the hallmarks of a small group of engineers with a well-intentioned project that is way too early stage to determine if it will land. @j2kun @unexpectedteapot #Chrome had #GreaseMonkey built in, but later locked it down to the point where only scripts on the Play store can be practically used (with some developer exceptions). Now it seems likely that Manifest V3 will break it entirely... enshittification in action. One thing I really miss is the #Platypus extension (on #Firefox) that allowed simple page edits to be saved as #GreaseMonkey scripts. Sure, the Lizard extension has the edit features, but not the save.   @j2kun If Google - and certainly Chromium - folks wanted the benefit of the doubt, they shouldn't have been spending the past decade giving people every reason not to do so @j2kun And I say this as someone who has *repeatedly* tried to engage in (technical, on-point!) discussion with Chromium devs fronting shitty proposals like this and just getting blocked for the attempt @joepie91 Not asking anyone to give Google the benefit of the doubt, just not to mislead in their "tl;dr"s @j2kun It's not "misleading". It's drawing conclusions based on past behaviour, and the post very likely says exactly what the author intended. Asking for those conclusions to be downgraded absolutely *is* asking people to give Google the benefit of the doubt. @j2kun @thomasfuchs this kind of "editorializing" is utterly mandatory when reporting on boil-the-frog tactics You *need* to think about where the "policy" is going to be taken 20 revisions from now |
@thomasfuchs Criticize Google all you want, idgaf, and you're probably right. But distinguish between your summary of a link and your editorializing.