I think here on hn many people us Firefox, with Chrome as backup for institutional sites that won’t work on FF(at least it’s the case for me). Or other alternativies or all of them interchangeably based on purpose. What makes the real market share is the rest of world outside of hn
It is really hard to fight the advertising and luring of The Google machine. I never mind being annoying to my friends and relatives and talk about how Firefox is a safer and better alternative. People are often surprised that a choice even exists. To many just outside my circle, browser == Chrome , mail == Gmail, phone == Android, maps == Google Maps, payment solution == Gpay, and instant communication == WhatsApp.
It is hard to beat free.
My own 74 year old dad says.. be practical, I don’t care if Google wants to profile me as a 74 year old man interested in watching my regional language news and religious videos. Nor do I care if Google knows that I spend the little retirement money of mine buying these medicines or paying for the taxis. They can try targeting ads to me all they want, but good luck to them, I’m not going to book an expensive holiday in the Himalayas, nor am I going to buy something I don’t want to buy. I just want something that works in a way I have gotten used to. I don’t want change at my age.
I can sympathize with his argument. I just wish young people don’t find an argument like his..
We have regulations preventing some rich dude flooding the market with free product to gain a monopoly and then charge exorbitant prices. Why not the same for digital services in this internet age?
I wish we regulated internet services the same way. No “free” email, chat, social services paid for by creepy ad companies. The real cost of these services at the scale of the number of users is minuscule anyway. The field Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple plays at should be leveled for new competition - that is a Government’s duty to enable.
The biggest issue isn't that behemoth companies will try to do bad things. It's in their nature to do as much as they can get away with - even illegal ones - even at a short term loss. The biggest problem is apathy from others. Freedom isn't guaranteed - it's something you always have to fight to protect. It's not a choice.
> They can try targeting ads to me all they want, but good luck to them, I’m not going to book an expensive holiday in the Himalayas
I don't know if this argument is deliberately understating the issue. I'm going to assume it's not. The real cost of pervasive tracking and ad isn't forcing you to buy something. It's much deeper - like increased insurance premiums, denied insurance (based on data that insurance companies buy from data brokers), locked down and unrepairable devices (to force you to consume ads), massive scale political manipulation (like in case of FB and CA), suppression of labor rights and free-market employment (based on racial profiling, search trend analysis etc) and similar. It's going to cost you more than a ticket to the Himalayas - it's just not very obvious.
> Why not the same for digital services in this internet age?
It isn't hard for large companies to capture regulatory bodies. It isn't even effective in open market or even in cases where lives are at stake (recent cases of air crashes is an example). No regulatory body or the government is going to protect your rights unless you demand it. It's their duty, but it isn't going to happen without your insistence.
I can understand how such fights can be very tiring. However, dissuading others is irresponsible. Everyone has the right to ask for a non-dystopian future.
I know you understand this but Google doesn't care about the data insofar as they can sell it to the highest bidder in their literal real-time ad placement auctions. 4th and 5th parties are using thousands of behavioral signals to influence the reality that your father consumes in his regional language news and religious videos over years and decades.
