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.
I do use Firefox and have been since its used to named 'Netscape'... Everyone in my family uses Firefox on all their devices but that's just a microscopic fraction.
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).
Ditto. Firefox takes security and privacy more seriously as well. Google's business model is selling online advertising which by nature requires data collection and tracking. I've been using Firefox as main browser and for web development for years and never thought about going back to Chrome.
I'm not entirely sure whether it is more sustainable to maintain a separate rendering engine than to gradually build up Chromium expertise outside of Google.
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.
you can build all the expertise you want, it will not achieve much control or influence over what gets put into Chrome and therefore what power Google has to influence or just ignore web standards. The real power comes from voting with your feet and using a different browser altogether.
Building Chromium expertise could enable Chromium alternatives such as Vivaldi, Edge or Brave to selectively remove or override features that only benefit Google.
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.
We already know the answer. Did those so called browsers, but actually Chrome mods, made independent decisions about AMP? Something they can't just change easily. The answer is no. And the same answer will be when Google will make Floc permanent and not switchable in Chrome. No need to test anything again.
> Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
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.
Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.