[flagged]

>> KHTML fork.

> Embrace extend extinguish. Now Manifest v2 is gone.

You keep on hammering on this point and I don't think it makes sense the way you think it does. Manifest v2 (and extensions in general!) are a feature which Google created and added to Chrome entirely themselves. I'm not a fan of what they did in Mv3 either, but it's their feature, and it's their prerogative to change it. If you're arguing that something (the license?) should prevent them from making changes to their software which you don't like, whatever you're imagining has drifted rather far away from open source.

	▲	echelon 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm sorry this has meandered so much. Google is playing chess at a level where we mere mortals can only be bystanders. They can invest billions of dollars into a piece of software that the entire world benefits from. I wouldn't call it pure benevolence or charity, but I'll give them that. It's useful software that they didn't have to write or give away. The problem is that Google isn't one person. It's a collection of forces seeking to optimize the overall position and profitability of the company. Even if that means that they might impinge upon or even willfully pilfer from the broader commons. Chrome is now a central chess piece in controlling the web, advertising, and search. Maybe it didn't start that way, but it's what it has become - intentionally or not. And now that most people are using Chrome, Google is free to boil the frog, tighten the noose, etc. Their grip on the funnel is iron clad, and they can apparently operate monopolistically without interference from the DOJ. Chrome might be open, but you won't be able to afford to deviate from Google's choices. The engineering hurdles are too steep for small teams to overcome. And because of browser monoculture, the experience with other browsing technologies and platforms degrades. The result is that we're being herded like cattle. I don't think the folks at Google think of us this way, but that's how it is in practice. Behavior at scale to increase profits. Google gets to proudly proclaim that Chrome is "open source". But in reality the only force that can meaningfully steer the product - the entire web ecosystem at this point - is Google. And they use that power against us. Open source is a strategy for big tech. In the case of Matt vs WP engine, it's simply enabling a vulture company to dip into the tip jar without tipping out. My point is that "open source" isn't entirely pragmatic about users and freedom. In some very real cases it's inequitable and not sustainable. By empowering monopolizers, it's orthogonal to user benefit. Amazon gets to steal databases and make managed offerings that pull profit from the originators into AWS' coffers instead. Google gets to, well, own the web and search and everything. WP Engine gets to dip into Wordpress' decades of hard work. I don't see how the users benefit. Just the greedy growth minded profiteers. Users aren't even in the conversation. The conversation is entirely about who profits and controls. And that is, to me, what's fucked up about all of this.

▲

bigyabai 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Don't be too kind to the trillion dollar company.

They got to be worth a trillion dollars somehow. I hate Apple with the passion of a million suns; guess what? They sell something people want. They make money, they survived. Their copyright is preserved equally as well as the AS-IS terms of the BSD license. And despite being whipped like a dog, there are still multiple BSD OSes with modern software packaged for them.

> We let these giant companies use open source to make the internet and technology more centralized and less free.

Do "we"? I'm running Firefox right now, maybe you're on an iPad or some other platform that locked you down. But that's your problem, if it concerned you then you should have returned it to the Apple store.

People still have a free choice to run whatever software they want. Wordpress is not being made "less free" because hosting companies won't get out of bed to pay Matt's bills. If the project has to die to prove it, it will die as a free program. It will still be forkable and maintainable by the community because that was the intention and spirit of the project.

> Google is very good at this game.

No, the fed is just particularly bad at it.

Google's big problem is that they monopolize online advertising and the DOJ refuses to neuter them. If your free access to the internet gets tragically cut off by Apple's indignant software policies... not my problem, is it?

▲

echelon 4 days ago | parent [-]

I almost totally agree with you, with the exception that I think market distortion does impact non-users.

You can be a Firefox user, and your Firefox usage is impacted by the overwhelming market share capture of Chrome and Chromium browsers.

You can use Librem and be impacted by your government requiring software that will only run on iOS or Android. Or Chrome.

> DOJ refuses to neuter them

Yes, but don't give them the free pass. Even if a company's objective is to take as much of the pie as possible, Google and Apple actively employ lawyers to skirt the regulators.

	▲	bigyabai 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I expect my experience will degrade. The whole web's felt stale since Flash died, I doubt the next few years will feel any different. We're post-that, sadly. Apple and Google already got the pass, they won't be litigated in this admin unless they fail to kiss the ring. We have to live with these damages, the same way we've limped alongside a broken internet for the past decade. Its possible these abuses will be encoded in American identity for decades to come. The next step is surviving top-down control, and freely-licensed software will be the only alternative to the digital monoculture.