but remember we have this (widespread from 90s to 2010) to this day in the USA, and they don't even bother with excuses. just shove advertising and hijack searches right on your face.
google didn't force httpsdns on your browser for nothing. it was digging in THEIR pockets.
the ideal situation would actually be to implement httpdns on the OS/router level and allow the user/local admin choose the policy. i expect that this is going to happen soon in most linux distributions.
Httpdns is too complex of a solution to the business goal you’re suggesting. There are much simpler / less expensive ways of doing it.
It's the main reason google google pushed httpdns and chrome. So you go to google.com. google current money cow is literally AOL keywords.
That would be cool?
Given the repo name, I shouldn't have been surprised
Microsoft has invested in a startup that uses facial recognition to surveil Palestinians throughout the West Bank, in spite of the tech giant’s public pledge to avoid using the technology if it encroaches on democratic freedoms.
AnyVision, which is headquartered in Israel but has offices in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore, sells an “advanced tactical surveillance” software system, Better Tomorrow. It lets customers identify individuals and objects in any live camera feed, such as a security camera or a smartphone, and then track targets as they move between different feeds.
No. This is more similar to an ad blocker, but focused on helping Muslims respect their religious standards while they browse the web. I’m not a Muslim, but it makes perfect sense to me. Good for them—I see no problem with it.
Somebody installs it for him/her-self. Sure, power to you!
Neibhour in non-muslim state installs it for their children: their right, but feels fishy regarding child right to truth.
I’m not sure what’s fishy about it. Parents have always controlled what their children should have access to and consume. The entire concept of “parental controls” exists for this reason—we’ve always understood a parent’s rights over their children and none of that was at all controversial until like 5 minutes ago.
This is a digression anyway, so I’ll just stop there…
I’m sorry that everyone in the world doesn’t think the way you’d like them to.
I know lots of Muslims, both male and female, and they’re perfectly normal to me. In fact, some of them are some of the most wholesome folks I know: Humble and hardworking humans who build and love their families, and of course, believe in something much greater than themselves. I see nothing “backwards” about that.
You're kidding but I've already toyed with using AI models to analyze browsers' screenshots and determining if it's likely phishing or not and it works very well.
Assuming the AI is comparing screenshots of real versus phishing, it can only figure it out for poorly done phishing websites.
As phishing scams get more sophisticated with scam websites that look exactly like the real ones, the only things that truly matter are protocols (i.e., HTTP versus HTTPS), domains, URL’s, certificates, etc.
Most people already only see the web the way Google wants them to see it.
There’s an argument that Google should not cater to our preferences, but I don’t think I buy it.
So arguably google does not respond to customers anymore. Shareholders? Maybe. But probably those who prefer short term gain, not long term value.
You want privacy? It stamps out any attempts at fingerprinting by attempting to be the most common browser (and config) out there, it spoofs any and all identifying data, it redraws pages without paywalls, without cookie notices and puts all pages in simple text output mode removing all other ads in the process, but keeps pictures for fora that use them.
You want 1984? It won't let you see anything that is not approved by the party.
Onwards, to our glorious future.
edit:
Valuemaxx edition. Store pages with discounts have bruteforced discounts found and added for maximum value.
It already is crazy. I can't even begin to imagine it being more crazy.
Jacques Ellul and/or Ted Kaczynski might be a starting point on this matter.
Apartheid was implemented by the non-natives (i.e. white colonialists) towards the natives, while this is a different concept.
Regardless, when I look up the definition of apartheid it doesn't seem to require the non-natives being the ones to implement it.
The whole precedent of the language is also insane. Imagine if words COULD in reality cause harm. Monty Python satirized the concept here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qklvh5Cp_Bs The "online words cause harm" is as absurd as that skit. Really the damage is in people claiming to have been harmed, emotionally, by a word, them wielding that as victim-power aka crybullying - that can translate into school/career/legal problems that are more of a quantifiable harm. Further, if words were so damaging, as Monty Python shown us, they would immediately be weaponized, the sensitivity to this topic is extreme hyperbole.
Since the premise of works causing harm is nonsense, the definition of harm is equally superfluous. Talk to any student council president or HOA president who only did it for the power, about some initiative they alone are driving against the wishes of the group, and you will find hand waves and sugarcoats everywhere, their selfish intent somewhat easy to see behind the well-sounding good-intending reasons. Politics at the national scale is the same exact game, just that the power hungry people waving hands are much skilled and experienced.
That's how it _always_ starts out, the "its for your own good, trust me" excuse.