Don't use Chrome and don't use other browser based on Chromium either. As long as Google's engine has 85%+ market share, they can just unilaterally do whatever they want to the web.
Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting).
With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well.
Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
I'm wondering whether this is ultimately a more effective strategy if the goal is independence from Google's business model while offering a performant browser that works on all websites.
Mozilla has to put tremendous resources into implementing browser features that are uncontroversial and unrelated to Google's business model. And those resources are paid for by Google.
That said, there are certainly good arguments in favour of having more than one rendering engine. After all, privacy controversies are not the only reason why competition is healthy.
I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS.
How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.