mike22223333

It should be illegal to do that.

As a publisher, most of us do not care about Firefox either. They have done us no good. So we don't even bother to test on it.

Their so called "Tracking Protection" is nothing more then a gimmick. It can be bypassed easily using methods other then cookies. All it did was reduce the revenue from ads because of no cookies (the legitimate way to track id's). It did an insignificant harm to Google. But it reduced the revenue from Firefox users by a huge percentage for publishers.

Firefox is losing because it favors the wrong demographics. Firefox offers nothing much exclusive to users and neither to developers. Most people using ad blockers, use Firefox on mobile.

Sad to see it the way it is. Safari did the same. But the market share is still relevant, but it is declining as well. Once it reaches a certain point, no one will bother to test for it either.

DNT was a shit show. DNT should have always required manual user intervention to be respected.

Google's interests apart from their AMP project aligns with the publishers. If we win, they win.

But there is very little left to innovate. Almost all kinds of apps are there. AGI is only possible by large corps because of the massive compute requirement.

The next Google/Facebook will be made when either of the following criteria are met:

1. They mess up hard, causing a critical mass to boycott it (highly unlikely)

2. New world changing communication technology is invented, similar to the internet. With similar applications AND government regulations delaying them from developing on the new technology

3. Processing chips become so fast that the average person is able to afford and run a 1 petaflop computer just like the cost of buying and running a PC's today.

Amazon was possible because of the internet. Facebook will remain the King until some communication related world changing technology arrives.

The low hanging fruit is already picked.

There are exceptions for paywalls.

Not any more. There were changes.

Larger ad dependent publishers have to push out click bait because smaller publishers push it out. If larger publishers would not do clickbait if smaller publishers do, they go out of business, because smaller ones steal the share of money.

Ad revenue is a zero sum game.

Too many small publishers are not good. The small publishers which gain revenue because of Google are too dependent on it. Hence they cannot criticize Google else indirectly their SEO is affected. Larger independent publishers have to compete with smaller clickbaity non professional publishers and also have to serve clickbait. Because Ad revenue is mostly a zero sum game. The smaller publishers who do not have many journalists just make clickbait titles eat into professionals who are also dependent on Ads.

It is in Google's interest to have multiple small publishers instead of few large publishers, because Google can blackmail the smaller ones more easily and multiple publisher speaking against something is more difficult then few grouped publishers.

If the publishers and Google's interest clash, it is a good thing for the readers. If they align, it is a very good thing for Google, a little good for publishers and bad for readers.

Headlines are exempted from link tax. Any part of body text is not.

No. This means less click bait. Ad revenue is a zero sum game mostly. The shit news site are no longer able to clickbait in Google news. More share of money goes to publishers despite less traffic. Clicbaiters lose.

Faraday cage.

The government should outlaw the link between them.

Why is it insane? You should be happy that a member of the middle class is doing well. We should expect this in our society, unfortunately programmers from lower class get happy much earlier.

So you are going to justify it like that? These days liberals are falsely using the word liberal. A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. Not what your emotions say.

Before a man was getting paid 40k a year. Now his wife joins. Congratulations, you both fools now get paid 20k each.

And allowing the Google Play Services and Play Store to grow so big that their own store (in case relations go wrong with Google, they have a backup) can not compete.

Because when Google made Android it was allowed. Device manufacturers supported Android and PlayStore and gave up some control to Google because of the deal. Now Google is trying to back off from the deal after it has a huge network affect because of the exclusive apps, Play Services and Play Store.

Android would not have been so big if it were not an open platform. There were many other closed source OS's available ie. Windows Phone.

If Google backs off, it would be a bait and switch, and this tactic should be illegal.

Imagine if Samsung had its own OS, Apple with its own, Nokia (now with Android) and others with their own. We would not have much choice if Android were not open between phones because many of our apps would not be compatible.

iOS from the beginning was not open. It was known, so everyone knew. Android is expected to remain open because it was initially open.

TL;DR: Android would have been dead it were not an open platform. No device manufacturer should have give up control to Google, which Samsung regrets to date.

Wages are not rising, what is the use of flooding the market?

Broad benefits ... to shareholders

Increase the bug bounty rewards for such things to depend on the scale so $1M-$10M bounty should be given. Otherwise face a reputation hit.

Person with insider info here. It was Google that started the data race. Rest of the industry was forced because Advertisers would not advertise otherwise because they were getting better return on investment buying ads that were targeted using personal data aka Google.

Sweden tried it. It failed.

If you agree to pay $10 a month per paper, then you could have it. But majority of people have proven that they will not pay, hence it does not justify to have a paid subscription system without ads.

When more and more people block ads, there will only be a few large sites remaining on the internet because the rest will not be able to survive in the most likely scenario. You could cry all about your freedom then.

If you charge credit card customers extra, credit card companies block you from network.

This should be illegal but it's not.

If you charge credit card customers extra, credit card companies block you from network.

I'm probably a person with not so great social skills. I'm a person of color.

I do not need SJW's to defend me. Please do not destroy our culture.

All of a sudden this movement to add "diversity" and other crap is just not right. I agree there is some casual racism/racism for the sake of racism in the community, but I am personally not even bothered and it has never affected me (I ignored them and they stopped and some of them now are my close friends). When I joined the industry, I felt a bit unwelcome, but just in a months no problem was ever there. I saw that people had a different culture then me, so I just over few months I adapted the same culture subconsciously.

The maintainers should always value merit over "diversity" or "women in tech" agendas and other stupid similar things. We're not a playground for your political agendas.

My personal contributions have been blocked several times, but it never bothered me. I did what I loved, and my contributions were committed after trying for a few times.

Instead of wondering why my commits weren't merged and blaming on xenophobia/racism/fascism/blameism/bla bla bla , I decided to look at the patterns of commits that were successfully accepted.

Every community has a different culture so if you cannot adopt what everyone is following, maybe this industry is not right for you.

Because now it's not only affecting their users but their competitors too.

Alphabet is too big now, it needs to be broken. Gmail, YouTube, ChromeOS, Google Chrome, Google Pixel, Android, Google Play, Google Search, Google Maps,Google Ads. They all need to be individual competing companies.

If only would Edge add support for installing PWA's directly from chrome, like me prompting users to install, it would be great.