18 comments

  • CrzyLngPwd 29 minutes ago
    It seems to me that adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people who, for the most part, would be completely unaware it's even happening.

    Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.

    • rishabhaiover 13 minutes ago
      It would be a reasonable deduction for someone who doesn't have the time or interest to understand the internals.
  • Animats 14 minutes ago
    When Google did that, did they default the "sending data" feature to off?

    Do I even need to ask?

  • SunshineTheCat 2 hours ago
    I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.
    • plopz 1 hour ago
      Brave started off incredibly sketchy and with terrible reputation, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

      I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat.

    • ifh-hn 1 hour ago
      I'm similar but instead of brave, which I don't trust, prefer Firefox.
      • tardedmeme 17 minutes ago
        I don't trust Firefox either, so I use Zen, which is based on Firefox and also changes the UI.
    • skocznymroczny 59 minutes ago
      I switched to Firefox when Chrome started messing with the ad blockers. Haven't really had any issues. I prefer developer tools on Chrome but I rarely need to use them anyway.
      • xacky 46 minutes ago
        The trouble is that Mozilla has admitted they can't survive without Google's revenue. You are basically using Google by proxy unless you use a truly independent browser engine of they get blocked by Cloudflare for not having enough fingerprinting tech.
        • hparadiz 36 minutes ago
          (Ungoogled) Chromium and Firefox are both projects that are open source and readily available. The code is sitting there ready for you to compile. More users = more donations. You can be the change you wanna see.
        • unethical_ban 19 minutes ago
          I don't agree that you are using Google by proxy when Firefox has more technical independence from Google than Chrome and can be quickly decoupled from the few Google defaults it has, search and safe browsing.
    • coldpie 10 minutes ago
      I want to use a browser engine that is not developed/owned by Google, so I use Firefox. I also don't want to support Brave's CEO's politics, so I would not use Brave regardless.
    • vehemenz 1 hour ago
      Ok, why Brave though? There's Safari, Chromium, LibreWolf, Ladybird, and plenty of others.
      • bloqs 14 minutes ago
        1. Because it's most popular. Guaranteed support and "monkey see monkey do".

        2. The adblocking is preconfigured, and non technical users trying to find the right extensions has a very bad history of unintentional malware. Ad block? Adblock plus? Ublock? Ublock origin? This is a great example of what floors a lot of technical folk who would be "why not just install ublock origin" and fail to understand the "why should I when I can just get Brave one and it works"

        3. Most people don't use macs

      • fg137 59 minutes ago
        Not everyone is on Mac. In fact, most people use Windows. So Safari and Ladybird are out of the question, that's two gone.
      • nazgulsenpai 1 hour ago
        They mentioned the built-in adblock
      • rolymath 1 hour ago
        Brave is has pre-configured as block that works on everything, also a polished sync experience.
        • g8oz 35 minutes ago
          Vivaldi's sync experience is nice as well. Top notch customization too.
    • touristtam 29 minutes ago
      After years of using alternative to chrome (Firefox, Chromium, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, etc ...) I have stopped fighting the choice of IT for installing and setting Chrome as the default browser on a Mac. I still use Firefox when I can and religiously reroute URLs to it where possible, but this is beating me down and I would rather spend time playing with LLMs rather than continue this struggle.
    • amatecha 1 hour ago
      I'm just surprised people use Chrome at all. Google has proven over and over they can't be trusted and will exploit you every chance they get.
      • e40 58 minutes ago
        Because some things only work in Chrome. It's a fact. It's terrible.

        We're the frogs being boiled, over the last decade. People sounded the alarms, but they were looked at like they had tin foil on their heads. Now, it's clear they were right.

        I'm speaking generally, of course. I use Firefox for all my personal stuff, except for those situations where it doesn't work.

        • tcp_handshaker 42 minutes ago
          >> Because some things only work in Chrome.

          What things? Looks like an urban myth.

          • JoshTriplett 21 minutes ago
            I'm aware of a few things, myself:

            1) Google properties

            1a) Chromecast

            2) a few web-based games that were really pushing the envelope on web APIs and didn't bother testing on Firefox

            3) WebUSB, commonly used for some things like keyboard customization apps

          • hparadiz 34 minutes ago
            A lot of IT now curates the extensions for the browsers and doesn't allow extensions not on the whitelist and then they basically just only do that work on Chrome and disable Firefox. It's kinda self defeating in the long run imo but that's the problem in the industry.
          • input_sh 26 minutes ago
            Chrome likes to make up new "standards" and then some websites adopt them immediately.

            That said, I can only remember two instances of that slightly inconveniencing me in the past, and both times I was inconvenienced by a Google-run website: once upon a time Google Earth refused to work, and once upon a time I couldn't tweak my Google Meet background. Both are no longer the case.

      • mrguyorama 33 minutes ago
        95% of people who use Chrome have no clue what browser they are using.

        They got Chrome when it was bundled with every single installer ever for about a decade (which was so prolific and scummy that Microsoft had to make the "default app" picker system more defensive, because Chrome was abusing it more than microsoft apps were).

        When you installed Java, you also got Chrome set as your default browser with no interaction.

        Or they one click downloaded it from Google.com because of a giant banner saying "You gotta download chrome"

        It's insane to me how rarely people on HN seem to actually know the history of this. Everyone who worked in tech support in the 2010s experienced this.

        It was an identical strategy that most spyware and adware used at the time.

    • jeffgreco 1 hour ago
      I was very vehement about needing to stay in Chromium — until I tried Zen browser and it turns out I didn’t! (Unless I wanted to watch Prime Video)
    • maxloh 1 hour ago
      I find Brave's UI uglier than Chrome's.

      Unfortunately, there is no way to switch back to the stock Chromium look.

    • frizlab 34 minutes ago
      I use Safari personally. It’s good.
    • afavour 1 hour ago
      You’re definitely in a bubble. Google advertises Chrome on TV. Most users haven’t even heard of Brave.
    • shevy-java 1 hour ago
      Well, why would I want to use Brave?

      Brave is the Google empire aka chromium.

      I use thorium, which also belongs to the empire, so it is not really any different to Brave - but I can use ublock origin still, so that's better. I think we are all in the Google empire here. Praising Brave as alternative, simply does not make a whole lot of sense really.

      Firefox is a bit outside of it but it basically got rid of most of its users. When I use firefox, I can not play audio on youtube videos. It works fine with thorium. I tried to convince the firefox developer who said everyone on Linux must use pulseaudio (I don't) but there is no reasoning with Mozilla hackers here. He thinks he knows better than everyone else does. (I could recompile firefox from source, but Mozilla uses mozconfig still: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox... - they are too incompetent to transition into meson or cmake. A failing project, no wonder it lost most of its users. Titanic got nothing on the Firefox team.)

    • Markoff 1 hour ago
      why would you use brave with annoying crypto and no customization over superior Vivaldi?
      • tcp_handshaker 41 minutes ago
        Why did I had to come so much down this thread, before seeing a mention of my favorite browser?
    • RobRivera 1 hour ago
      I have never heard of Brave, please tell me more

      Edit: downvoting a request for insight on something? Mediocre

    • bix6 1 hour ago
      +1 for Brave. Been on it for years and it’s fantastic. Strongest security settings without issue.

      O no they gave you BAT for visiting websites. Ahhh crypto everyone run!

      • bloqs 6 minutes ago
        I'm not familiar with this?
    • newsoftheday 1 hour ago
      My theory is that, since I'm going to do things like banking in my browser, I want one that has a lot of skin in the game. Chrome being backed by Google has trillions of dollars on the line should they ever do anything truly evil. Though this sneaky 4GB download comes close.
      • bix6 1 hour ago
        Google is not liable for your banking.
      • SecretDreams 1 hour ago
        There's no skin in the game if they do not think they'll be meaningfully punished by government or consumers for their wrongdoings.
        • AlecSchueler 1 hour ago
          And they have trillions riding on milking you for all your data and ad impressions.
          • SecretDreams 42 minutes ago
            Which they seem to think they'll get, regardless of the quality of their web browser. Most people are entrapped by Android anywho.
      • iAMkenough 57 minutes ago
        Edge and Chrome could both be eliminated tomorrow and those trillions would be safe.

        You’re the product, not the browser.

  • avdelazeri 3 hours ago
    • baq 1 hour ago
      Taken completely by surprise, no one could have predicted this /s
  • jeffcox 2 hours ago
    As soon as "don't be evil" became a topic for debate it was over, if you're surprised you haven't been paying attention.
  • wafflemaker 52 minutes ago
    Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem.

    It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them.

    I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it!

    I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

    • robhlt 35 minutes ago
      These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.
      • wafflemaker 7 minutes ago
        https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnause...

        You seem more knowledgeable in how browsers and js work than me. Does the below text still mean that AdNausem is downloading and running all the advertising JS?

        Here's what's in the link: >AdNauseam 'clicks' Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions this is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a background process. This lightweight request signals a 'click' on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads.

      • tardedmeme 14 minutes ago
        What metrics does the ad network use to identify the clicks as "fraudulent"?
    • BrenBarn 49 minutes ago
      How will it stop ads if it rewards them with money?
      • wafflemaker 6 minutes ago
        It makes them burn money with no effect. Doesn't work every time, but still sends a message.
      • stronglikedan 40 minutes ago
        It rewards Google with the advertiser's money, and the advertisers don't like paying for extremely low conversion rates.
      • dsr_ 36 minutes ago
        Because it could eventually be detected as click-fraud, and ad networks hate paying out for click-fraud.
      • tcp_handshaker 44 minutes ago
        You question is the answer to your query
  • ScoobleDoodle 2 hours ago
    For someone with more knowledge than me: How does this affect other Chromium based browsers?

    I did some web searches and see Brave has its own AI thing “Leo” that is intended to preserve privacy. But I don’t think that is on device. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    I use Firefox myself but have family and friends who use various Chromium based browsers.

    Thank you.

    • josefcub 1 hour ago
      Brave's "Leo" AI is configurable enough to specify local endpoints for processing, instead of going wherever they want it to go. I've set it up to use my own systems, and it works just fine like that.

      If you have a beefy enough device, then yes this can be done on-device.

    • sheept 1 hour ago
      My guess is that this falls under a Google service and the models themselves wouldn't be added to open source Chromium. Even if it were, Chromium forks would likely exclude it like they did for FLoC because of its unpopularity.
    • pier25 1 hour ago
      Also, does this affect Chrome for iOS, Android, and iPadOS?
  • Fairburn 1 hour ago
    Use anything BUT Chrome or Edge.
    • stronglikedan 39 minutes ago
      I've tried them all but nothing so far beats the UX of Chrome.
  • squidsoup 27 minutes ago
    Has anyone found a browser with comparably good dev tools to Chrome?
  • arian_ 1 hour ago
    "on-device" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the device is a thin client to Google's servers wearing a trench coat.
  • akomtu 28 minutes ago
    It's on-device AI spyware, really. It collects intelligence about the user, summarizes it and sends it to Google, all paid by the user's electricity bill. Deviously clever.
  • shevy-java 1 hour ago
    What we learn: we can not trust Google.
    • saintfire 30 minutes ago
      Doesn't look like that has been or will ever be (generally) learned.
    • TranquilMarmot 32 minutes ago
      You're just now learning this? There are whole books about it (check out "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Shoshana Zuboff)
    • Zambyte 1 hour ago
      Everything made by Google is a liability.
  • greenavocado 2 hours ago
  • ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago
    Al or AI?
    • ulfw 2 hours ago
      It's Google. It's AIs
  • ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago
    Google weighs in on Chrome's weights.bin controversy https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-weights-bin-f...
  • askonomm 2 hours ago
    I mean to be expected of Google. Even their Google Pay sends data to their servers whenever you use it to make payments, effectively also making it so you can't even use it without service. Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device, and not only is private, but as a result also enables payments entirely offline.
    • acheong08 1 hour ago
      > Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device, and not only is private, but as a result also enables payments entirely offline.

      Apple Pay still does send a lot of telemetry about your payments though. https://duti.dev/randoms/wip-location-services/

    • fsckboy 1 hour ago
      >Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device

      so when I use the physical card that is also on Apple Pay, and Apple Pay tells me I just made a transaction as if I had used Apple Pay, that is all happening on my device? what online service is my phone using to track my account with Visa or my credit card issuer, and it's polling or push?

      • Hamuko 1 hour ago
        You get a notification from Apple Pay when you pay with your physical card? Because I only get a notification from my bank's app whenever I use my physical card. Apple Pay notifications only pop up when using Apple Pay itself.
        • cyberax 1 hour ago
          > You get a notification from Apple Pay when you pay with your physical card?

          I do. Which is sometimes annoying if somebody else is looking at my screen.

    • jazzypants 1 hour ago
      I'm willing to bet that it's just for telemetry, but this kind of stuff just lends credence to the crazies claiming Google wants to create some kind of absurd botnet with people's devices.
    • gchamonlive 2 hours ago
      Maybe it sends the payload after coming back online, but for I can for instance leave with only my galaxy watch 6, which doesn't have esim, and I'm able to make payments as long as I connect it with my phone before leaving the house.
      • waterloser 1 hour ago
        If your phone doesn't have connection does it still work on your galaxy watch? Or if you leave the phone behind?
        • iamjackg 1 hour ago
          I think the comment's saying that they leave the phone at home, and the watch works by itself as long as it was connected to the phone before leaving the house.
      • Hamuko 1 hour ago
        Google Pay works for a limited amount of uses in offline mode.

        https://9to5google.com/2023/12/20/google-wallet-without-inte...

    • newsoftheday 1 hour ago
      Wow...that seriously may change my long standing anti-Mac disdain to pro-Mac advocacy, very interesting, even Gemini confirmed what you're saying.
  • jcgrillo 2 hours ago
    They're probably doing some degenerate form of [1].

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_computing

  • footy 37 minutes ago
    I too am surprised anyone uses Chrome, but I will admit to feeling similarly surprised by how many people use Brave. The company seems so sketchy to me, and I wonder why people who presumably care about web standards are so willing to use Chromium-based anything too.