Hi, Axel - In this article is a link to what is probably the Eric Schmidt interview to which you referred. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Financial Times. http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Eric_Schmidt_Explains_Googles_Chrome_Strategy
On the subject of invasive monitoring: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/eric-schmidt-google-creepy_n_748915.html The Riot post-beta features look very good, but I'm concerned that a lot of user reviews at the Google Play app listing are negative. https://medium.com/@RiotChat/the-big-1-0-68fa7c6050be Aryt On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:36 AM axel simon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:17:02PM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: > > Discord: what Facebook is trying to become. > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/how-discord-went-mainstream-influencers/584671/ > > > > Why to switch from Google Chrome to Mozilla Firefox. > > > https://www.siliconvalley.com/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-to-switch/ > > > > Hi, > Discord is interesting in that it's popular and offers people the > possibility to have their own community (which they call "server", I > believe), but there's nothing free and open source about it. > Matrix, and its main client Riot, are much more interesting to me > currently, as they are (ambitiously) trying to solve multiple problems at > once: a modern chat system, with voice and video and file sharing, with > end-to-end cryptography, while maintaining a decentralised network > architecture so that anyone can run their own instance, join and federate > with the rest. > Current versions of Riot might not be entirely as slick as Discord, but > they are getting better and they are very usable. > Incidently, Matrix has bridges to connect to other chat network (and > ideally, bridge them together, hence the name), and can bridge to Discord. > So there's a possibility of getting everyone to play nice with each other. > > Regarding Firefox vs. Chrome, Firefox has been the only browser (with any > relevant market share) that isn't the product of a for profit company for a > while. While Mozilla have made questionable descisions at time (and > outright mistakes at others), that alone should be a strong argument to > consider where one gets their browser from. I recall reading a statement in > an article around Chrome's release about 10 years ago by then-CEO Eric > Schmidt explaining that at the end of the day, if you want to be able to > really control and see what users are doing, you need your own browser. > This was when people couldn't quite understand why Google would build its > own browser when Firefox had manage to end the Internet Explorer dead lock > and they had a good relationship. > That passage really stayed with me (and if anyone were to find it, I'd be > very greatful, I can't seem to do so). > > So yes, it's not that surprising that, when push comes to shove, the > engineering teams working on Chrome have to bow to the business priorities > of Google, the world's (more or less) biggest advertisement company. > > Cheers, > > axel > > -- > axel simon > mail/matrix: [email protected] > twitter: @axelsimon > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major > commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you > moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, > change to digest mode, or change password by emailing > [email protected].
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
