Please add Grayjay from FUTO.

I don’t understand what you’re saying

I have to imagine they will strip it because if they don’t, it’ll be dead to all of their users.

How hard can you simp for Vivaldi. Jesus Christ.

I use 5 different browsers, zero of which are Vivaldi, and thus do not “simp” for Vivaldi. The only “simping” I do is for the truth. The Google hate train is valid but misplaced in this instance.

You don’t think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial?

You’re simply deliberately misreading my comment because what I said is not that it’s unsubstantial, I said that it’s inaccurate. Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks or their respective individual privacy policies’. This statement only pertains to the Chromium web browser.

I can see that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I won’t be engaging with you further. Bye.

To me it’s clear, based on your personal attacks, that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I will not engage with you further. Goodbye.

Have you even tried searching for it?

Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.

Google even says so for Chromium on its own official page!

This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.

Plus, Google actively creates and pushes for their “standards” via Chrome(ium), which allows them to push for even more surveillance.

This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.

Agreed, you get to pick between a system that empowers you to do whatever you like, or an unborkable system.

Yeah that’s not true. There is no such thing as an “unborkable” system. There are, however, systems that aren’t often borked by their developers, and systems that are easy or intuitive to fix when they do become borked, or systems that quickly ship a fix when they do become “borked” (this is Windows BTW).

The implication that any “borked” Linux install was somehow self-inflicted by the user is ridiculous.

since they’re chromium i don’t trust them an inch with my personal data.

This is such a ridiculous position. Do you have any evidence at all that every Chromium browser (even the ones specifically designed to avoid this) are transmitting your personal data?

Nope, it doesn’t.

Yep…it does.

It’s either the user, the distro, package maintainer or upstream fucking up.

Yes that’s what I’m referring to.

Remember that Android is Linux-based

People keep saying this without understanding that Android was forked with several billion dollars in funding and aimed squarely at “normal” users, and had a decade of development since then.

Most “Linux” OSes really don’t bother with this. How many times has someone sent you into the Android terminal to fix a problem? Literally never. It doesn’t even exist without connecting a PC. Because you don’t need it.

Initial setup can be hard, and then, because GNU/Linux lets you do whatever you want, It’s not hard to bork the system if you’re using commands you don’t understand.

But it borks itself. It doesn’t require my assistance.

I have to try to find the right wifi and sound drivers from the manufacturers website, and make sure you get the right driver version that works with Windows 10.

Meanwhile these drivers don’t even exist for Linux

This is always a hilarious conversation because the diehard Linux users will lie up and down about how Linux has no problems and it’s just you that’s too dumb to understand how to use it.