I will tell you something that most people won't: you don't have to use those websites.
It doesn't matter how important you think they are, you can take a stand by not using them if they don't respect you.
Do you know the reasoning behind the common saying "the united states doesn't engage with terrorists"? Politics aside, it's because engaging with your enemy legitimizes or empowers them. By refusing to negotiate or engage with terrorists, the policy aims to avoid granting them recognition or validation for their methods.
You can take the same stance; when a website stops working with non-chromium browsers you stop using it. You IMMEDIATELY stop using it, even better if you pay them money, you should IMMEDIATELY cancel citing that they're stealing your intellectual freedom. If the US government does the same and you're required to use a chromium browser to fill out your taxes for example, do it on paper, give them a message that you'd rather not use technology than have guns pointed at you
Sure, until there are almost no websites left you can go to.
that will likely not happen, FOSS tools will still respect you as a sovereign individual
Many sites I visit are not because I like the design of the site, but that I like the content that the users it has attracted have uploaded. Sure, there's YouTube alternatives, but they're not a replacement for the scale of YouTube. There's still a few subreddits I read because they don't have a good lemmy alternative.
Then you're still contributing to the problem.
Oh no, my local community events aren't announced on Lemmy, therefore I should just never interact with people in my town and spend more time browsing lemmy.
If you only allow all or nothing adopters, you're going to end up with nothing.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, as it doesn't pertain to the discussion that's going on.
Sure, until there are almost no websites left you can go to.
It worked in the '90s with internet explorer, it can work again now.
You just have to care enough to push back, to leave suggestion comments saying their website doesn't work with your browser, and that web browsing is an Internet standard. That's how it was done last time.
Sadly, it happened to IE as it was a nightmare to work with and web-devs started pushing back. Chrome is, by most accounts, the best browser to work with as a web-dev so it seems unlikely that there will be the same push back against it.
Sadly, it happened to IE as it was a nightmare to work with and web-devs started pushing back.
As a software developer during that time the fact that IE was or was not difficult to work with was not the reason for the pushback.
What happened was thst the customer base did the pushback, reminding corporations who tried to do the quickest development possible, by working with just one single browser (the one with the most population), that the Internet is a standard, and that all browsers are supposed to work with their websites.
Overtime that pressure created the change.
And that can happen again now.
Chrome is, by most accounts, the best browser to work with as a web-dev so it seems unlikely that there will be the same push back against it.
Please don't be so dismissal of the point I'm making.
It worked before, it can work again.
There will always be ways around it. Every time a barrier is put up, there are people who try to figure out how to break through it. For fun.
I think, at least in my state, Unemployment needs to be filed online. I don't believe there is an alternate process that doesn't require the internet.
I will tell you something that most people won't: you don't have to use those websites.
It doesn't matter how important you think they are, you can take a stand by not using them if they don't respect you.
Do you know the reasoning behind the common saying "the united states doesn't engage with terrorists"? Politics aside, it's because engaging with your enemy legitimizes or empowers them. By refusing to negotiate or engage with terrorists, the policy aims to avoid granting them recognition or validation for their methods.
You can take the same stance; when a website stops working with non-chromium browsers you stop using it. You IMMEDIATELY stop using it, even better if you pay them money, you should IMMEDIATELY cancel citing that they're stealing your intellectual freedom. If the US government does the same and you're required to use a chromium browser to fill out your taxes for example, do it on paper, give them a message that you'd rather not use technology than have guns pointed at you
Sure, until there are almost no websites left you can go to.
that will likely not happen, FOSS tools will still respect you as a sovereign individual
Many sites I visit are not because I like the design of the site, but that I like the content that the users it has attracted have uploaded. Sure, there's YouTube alternatives, but they're not a replacement for the scale of YouTube. There's still a few subreddits I read because they don't have a good lemmy alternative.
Then you're still contributing to the problem.
Oh no, my local community events aren't announced on Lemmy, therefore I should just never interact with people in my town and spend more time browsing lemmy.
If you only allow all or nothing adopters, you're going to end up with nothing.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, as it doesn't pertain to the discussion that's going on.
It worked in the '90s with internet explorer, it can work again now.
You just have to care enough to push back, to leave suggestion comments saying their website doesn't work with your browser, and that web browsing is an Internet standard. That's how it was done last time.
Sadly, it happened to IE as it was a nightmare to work with and web-devs started pushing back. Chrome is, by most accounts, the best browser to work with as a web-dev so it seems unlikely that there will be the same push back against it.
As a software developer during that time the fact that IE was or was not difficult to work with was not the reason for the pushback.
What happened was thst the customer base did the pushback, reminding corporations who tried to do the quickest development possible, by working with just one single browser (the one with the most population), that the Internet is a standard, and that all browsers are supposed to work with their websites.
Overtime that pressure created the change.
And that can happen again now.
Please don't be so dismissal of the point I'm making.
It worked before, it can work again.
There will always be ways around it. Every time a barrier is put up, there are people who try to figure out how to break through it. For fun.
I think, at least in my state, Unemployment needs to be filed online. I don't believe there is an alternate process that doesn't require the internet.