zlacker

Unfortunately, we will all happily accept this. Because using Chrome is "convenient". People will accept anything for convenience — WhatsApp is a good example, where millions of people worldwide happily share and sync their entire phone book with Facebook/Meta.

If you care, stop using Chrome. If you criticize this evil move, but continue using Chrome, you are part of the problem.

>>jwr+(OP)
I switched over to a fully open source environment, at least for mobile/desktop OS, browser, almost all software as well as cloud file storage etc. But with a notable exception where I still use Google Search. Perhaps with the rise of LLMs, one day I will run my own LLM to complete the move to being no longer reliant on monopolists.

>>edg500+33
Depending on the use-case, I find DDG is far better in many cases in returning sane search results. Might be a option to try. Not entirely open-source but better than the GOOG.

>>jwr+(OP)
WhatsApp and Chrome is apples and oranges - not using WhatsApp comes at a social cost (especially in countries like Germany and India where almost everyone uses it) because you can no longer communicate with other WhatsApp users or participate in group chats.

Not using Chrome comes with zero cost - you can use the same websites everyone else is using, just use Firefox.

>>erklik+f6
Same here, been using DDG for several years now and have not had any issues. I have tried switching to google a few times when im not finding what i need, but get turned off by their recommendations as well as just bad search results. I remember it took be a few weeks to get used DDG when i first switched. In a way it felt like going back to how search used to work, more keyword based, less trying to guess my life story to try to figure out what i really want.

>>jwr+(OP)
Please explain the terrible consequences of sharing my phonebook with Meta

>>erklik+f6
And kagi.com is way better than DDG if you're willing to pay

>>hcks+2a
Meta use your social connections to create advertising profiles of your friends whether they're on FB or not.

Your social graph is more accessible to other 'actors' than it would be if it weren't on Meta.

You may not care about this kind of thing, but I do. Unfortunately I'm not entirely free of it either, so any finger wagging on my part is at least partially hypocritical.

>>hcks+2a
Well, for one, you tell Meta about me, without my consent.

Let's say I have a kid at a school. I don't use WhatsApp, but several parents have me in their phonebooks. They use WhatsApp and also use Facebook on their phones. Facebook gathers their location information, and given what Facebook knows about them, it isn't difficult to infer that I also must have a kid attending a school at a particular address at particular times during the day.

Data mining quickly gets scary.

You can also look at it another way: if this information wasn't valuable, do you think Facebook/Meta would have paid a billion for WhatsApp back in the day? Do you think they maintain the "end-to-end encrypted" communications app out of the goodness of their hearts? This is extremely valuable information: millions of people share their identifying information (their phone number) and their social network (their phonebook). It's worth a lot!

>>wester+K7
> Not using Chrome comes with zero cost - you can use the same websites everyone else is using, just use Firefox.

Not quite. Increasingly, as Chrome became popular, you get websites that "work better in Chrome". Or do not work at all in other browsers. And you hear recommendations to "just use Chrome", so that things work. It's just more convenient all around.

>>jwr+LH
Been using Firefox for many years, have to switch to Chrome maybe twice a year