Yeah but it’s like 100 devices, I think. And I believe 3 users (meaning under one account; sharing a device with someone who makes their own account doesn’t count as a “user”). You’re right, but they’re pretty generous.

I don’t think it takes many resources to provide the service to consumers; it’s not like you’re using any of their bandwidth (minus the tiny amount used for coordination between clients). Oh, or if you use their DERP servers (encrypted, but still).

In general, people should know there are self hosted, truly private options, though. So thanks for mentioning Headscale.

You picked an excellent time (in terms of consumer choice on NAS’s). I’ve been using a DS920+ for the past few years, and the software is solid (e.g. the core apps like Drive, Photos, etc). Synology is (was?) also always number one in terms of security. But honestly, there’s little to no reason to expose your NAS to the internet these days since tools like Tailscale make life a lot easier (and safer).

That being said, I also was a beta tester for Ugreen’s NAS(es) last year. Their software sucked at the time, but it’s gotten way better. The hardware itself is gorgeous, and they don’t skimp on parts. The one I have is one they never intended to sell in the US: DX4700 (they sell the DXP4800). This one has an Intel N5105 (predecessor to the N100), 8GB RAM, and dual NVME slots (for cache or for storage). Plus they listened to us testers when we told them to allow third party OS installs without voiding the warranty (e.g. OpenMediaVault, etc).

Point is, no matter who you go with or if you build your own, it’s a good time (minus tarrifs).

Depends where you live. I pay $70/month for gigabit Fiber from Verizon (it works extremely well and rarely goes down or has issues). It’s also symmetrical.

No ISP in NYC has data caps. We have 8.3 million residents. I’ve lived here my whole life, and I’ve never had a data cap in my life for any ISP.

So I never understood the bs justifications given by Comcast and other ISPs who operate in less populated areas (most of the country, honestly). Like yes, I understand that no matter what they say, it’s about the money. But people in NYC would literally riot if we got data caps on home Internet.

Why doesn’t the rest of the country push back?

That’s fair. I should have said *if you can help it.

Yeah, you’re talking about MDM (Mobile Device Management) solutions/tech. I’m not an IT employee myself, but I am familiar with these things from work (similar situation as yours), and also because I’m a nerd and like researching these things.

On some phones, like Samsung’s (“Secure Folder”), you can have [essentially] a second, containerized instance of Android running. Or you can think of it like a virtual second user that ultimately you have control of. So what I did was install Outlook in that. Because the MDM permissions (e.g. wipe the phone) would only affect that container.

Otherwise, for everyone else – yeah don’t install work apps/accounts on your personal devices.

I’m starting to get the picture that you don’t understand how a web browser works. Otherwise you wouldn’t be equating Chrome to Chromium/forks that remove Google-everything. Blink being the dominant renderer is a completely separate issue. The renderer itself does nothing for Google in terms of “collecting data” on its own. You’re talking about the browser as a whole (e.g. “Chrome” = Chrome + Blink). They’re two separate things that are shipped together.

Google dominating the internet IS a privacy problem.

I agree, but using a non-Google, Chromium-based browser/fork that removes all of the Google bits is a separate issue than Google Chrome having huge marketshare. I don’t know how old you are, and the reason I say that is because I’m old enough to remember the original beta release (and 1.0) of Chrome. Chrome then isn’t what Chrome became years later, and now. That was my point in bringing up the past; because you’re acting like it’s been like this since Day 1. It’s taken over a decade for it to become enshittified.

And Chrome was never the most performant. Google just sabotage their own services to run worse on competitors browsers, because end users are stupid and will just assume "not google browser = bad " and use chrome.

Sure, rewrite history. Chrome was never the most performant, and nobody had anything to say about its ludicrous speeds during the Windows XP/7 era, when it was released /s. I understand what you’re saying, but my overall point is that you’re being hyperbolic and tying together separate issues under one label. For example, Brave sucks, but not because it’s based on Chromium. It sucks because of their policies and the actual execution (e.g. removal of privacy-preserving features, whitelisting Meta ads, etc).

Also, you clearly don’t read anything because I already told you that I switched from Brave to Firefox on all of my devices. Now what I’d like to know is, what browser(s) are you using, and do you recommend, and why. Because, by your logic, it’s the rendering engine (Blink) that is the issue, since you say that even anti-Google forks of Chromium (not Chrome) are as bad as Chrome itself. Does that means that now I can’t use Firefox forks, because they’re all tied back to Mozilla, who also has inserted/removed/changed features that have to do with privacy? I’m genuinely asking you. Also what does it mean when Mozilla gets a huge chunk of their funding for Firefox directly from Google?

tl;dr – The Blink renderer used by Chrome/derivatives does nothing on its own. You should be complaining about web developers who skew (design) their sites towards it instead of following general best practices for all renderers. Separately, and additionally, people should move away from Chrome because it’s a privacy nightmare, but that has nothing to do with the renderer. Finally, I do agree with you about Google kneecapping their web properties so they work worse with other browsers, but that’s user-agent related, and Google-related (not something Chrome does).

I don’t know about every Chromium-based browser, but I can tell you that I went back to Firefox and regret nothing (I was on Brave). Firefox has gotten a lot better lately, especially on desktop. For example, they added a native auto-PiP option, which is super helpful for those of us who watch YouTube/videos while flipping through tons of tabs.

Once again, that’s not privacy (the context of this discussion). Your point is that using Chromium encourages websites (as in, developers) to keep making sites that are Chromium-optimized, instead of browser-agnostic.

When you take all the “Google” out of a browser, they’re not getting any information from you because those mechanisms no longer exist. Again, I’m talking about Google and Chrome. You’re combining 3 different “issues” and slapping a “PRIVACY” label on them.

The real issue is that people default to Chrome, because for years it was the most performant browser (until it became a bloated shitfest). People need to become the change they wish to see (like me, who switched from Brave back to Firefox on all devices). That’s how you defeat a browser monopoly. This is just Internet Explorer from the 90s/2000s all over again. Remember how everyone used to default to it because it’s what they were taught? We (collectively) need to stop telling people “download chrome” as the default. It’s the equivalent of saying “google it”, instead of “look it up”.

That’s my point. So then what’s the solution when there are essentially two mainstream/mainline browsers? How far do you believe one needs to take it? Is a fork that de-Mozilla’s/de-Google’s the browser enough (and changes the name)? Or is that “still bad”?

Because eventually you’ll run out of [usable/daily-drivable] browsers, if you consider any fork to be “evil” by virtue of coming from Chromium/etc.

If one forks Chromium like Firefox has been forked to hell and back, then I view it as effectively taking the power out of Google’s hands. The issue with Chrome supremacy is that Google gets to, directly or indirectly, shape how websites/the internet operates/are built/optimized (since web devs will use it to do their web dev).

So then wouldn’t a better strategy be to make a Firefox-like, Chromium browser that is truly “neutral” (like Firefox is *on paper)? Also, remember that Mozilla receives a huge chunk of funding from Google, directly, in order to “keep Chrome from being a monopoly”.

Now, that last part depends on whether you considering Chrome to be Chromium, which I don’t. Here’s my understanding/view, overall (feel free to cherrypick or challenge any of it; I welcome and respect your opinions/corrections):

• Firefox has existed for longer than Chrome, but Chrome on release was leaner and faster (I speak from personal experience). The only other option was Internet Explorer, which was “Chrome” at the time (as in, average people defaulted to the “blue e” icon)

• Chrome became the dominant browser because it was lean and fast for its time. It’s obviously different now, but you cannot retroactively fault people for choosing an objectively-better browser [for the time]

• Genuinely not defending Google here, but my opinion is that a large reason we began to transition from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is because of Chrome (and any other modern browsers). This meant Chrome-optimized sites that didn’t work well with other browsers, but I view it as a no-fault situation (it’s just how tech progresses; it breaks compatibility with existing tech sometimes)

• Most people use “Google-everything” these days; I myself have had a Gmail account since it was a closed beta. This means they’re more likely to lean towards Chrome, because Google recommends it anyway

So to me, the issues are actually that people default to Google-everything, including Chrome (thus feeding Google info about their entire lives, 24/7). But I don’t see Chromium itself as evil. On its own, it’s open-source (minus Google bits obviously), which is what allows forks to be made that not only avoid the Google bits, but outright block them. I think it’s taking power back. I don’t think “EVERYONE SHOULD SWITCH TO FIREFOX OR A FIREFOX FORK IMMEDIATELY” is realistic (and I say that as someone who switched back to Firefox months ago)

I also think that web devs themselves should stop being biased towards…“Chrome-sponsored” (figure of speech) best practices. But I also think that Mozilla should [continue] making their browser more compatible with modern websites, and even maybe get more involved in establishing web design best-practices (meaning practices/technologies that work well equally regardless of browser or rendering engine). In fact, recently Mozilla highlighted their Web Compatibility reporting tool, so that people can let them know about sites that don’t render correctly in their browser

But neutered Chrome (aka repurposed + degoogled Chromium) isn’t the same as Google Chrome. I 100% understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t file this under “privacy” (at least not without some asterisks).

Remember that, by virtue of us being here on Lemmy and talking about all of this, we are also a niche group of people. We don’t represent the average person, even if we might be the ones who influence them with our knowledge.

Okay, but that’s not a privacy reason.