News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US vs. Google Amicus Curiae Brief of Y Combinator in Support of Plaintiffs [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:US vs. Google Amicus Curiae Brief of Y Combinator in Supp... by heylook on Sunday May 11, 2025 @05:49PM (#43957448)
> Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't.

Like Manifest V3, which explicitly makes it harder to strip out Google's own ad products on websites you visit?

> without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.

Or maybe it wouldn't. There are already lots of other browsers that don't.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US vs. Google Amicus Curiae Brief of Y Combinator in Supp... by surajrmal on Monday May 12, 2025 @03:16AM (#43960392)
Manifest v3 being tied to ads is a fantasy fiction. This is no proof of it and ample evidence it is a good security move which other browsers did first. Is apple doing similar things with Safari for nefarious reasons?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US vs. Google Amicus Curiae Brief of Y Combinator in Supp... by d1sxeyes on Monday May 12, 2025 @06:28AM (#43961479)
> This is no proof of it and ample evidence it is a good security move which other browsers did first.

You crush up the bitter pill in a spoonful of jam to make it easier to digest.

> Is apple doing similar things with Safari for nefarious reasons?

Yes? Look at what they tried to get away with with PWAs as an example.

[ Parent | on HN ]