We can’t just get an open standard because corpos will attack it or try to take ownership.
No matter how good the initial intentions, I feel like web browser development and web search under control of one single company is just too much concentration of power over the access to information to be a good thing.
That sounds clever. With a stewardship, a company without the obscene wealth that Google has could actually adopt a project normally out of their reach and influence it for good.
I wish the article went into more detail though.
This helps for context: https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/21/ecosia-has-offered-to-take-stewardship-of-chrome-and-its-not-a-bad-idea/
TLDR; If the lawsuit goes bad, and Google is forced to sell Chrome, it’s a way for them to retain ownership while working with an existing partner to overcome the monopoly ruling.
Still a win win in my book.
Thanks. Yeah I think if a company like Ecosia is involved it could be win-win. But if it’s another purely capitalist outfit then it’ll probably be business as usual.
I’m looking forward to the Ecosia AI being implemented in Google Chrome so I can continue to boycott both companies.
What are your resons to boycott ecosia?
I don’t accept AI implementation as a green product, and when the “green AI” they advertise is a special, low complexity opt-IN model I feel like I’m being bamboozled on two separate levels.
Your comment reads as if you don’t want them to offer AI, but if they do offer it then you want it to be either Opt-out or no opt out, and that you would prefer it to be a resource hungry AI at that. Is that what you meant to say? Because otherwise I don’t understand.
I don’t want them to greenwash AI. So as long as a self-professed green company provides a claimed green AI I don’t agree with them.
They could offer AI served off of a single RaspberryPi3 powered by a 2 gigawatt solar installation and the anti-AI crowd would find some other angle to attack it. The goal is to get people to think ‘AI Bad’, not any of the other strawmen that they stand up.
Nonsense. I run my own home hosted Ollama AI server 24/7. But I don’t claim it to be green tech in any way. Talk about strawman, I don’t see any claims regarding the worth of AI, perhaps I missed it?
Fun fact, smaller model LLMs can run on Pi5 at not untolerable speed. Could work on solar I suppose.
You’re focusing on their use of AI, and that doesn’t make sense. AI is a technology that exists. Search engines and RAG is one of the better ways to use it. They are a search engine, why would they not use it?
They’ve planted over 200 million trees, produce twice as much energy than they consume and have given over €90 million to green causes. They’re a non-profit company that gives 100% of their profits towards green initiatives, planting trees and investing in solar. It’s hardly greenwashing.
What does the power usage of their search engine services matter if they’re producing more energy than they consume? Your complaint just doesn’t make sense.
You’re focusing on their use of AI
No, I’m focusing on the hypocrisy of calling it green. A lot of other people are focusing on the AI tech though.
They’re a non-profit company that gives 100% of their profits
That’s not how non-profit profits work. 100% of the surplus might be invested in green causes but that’s after operating costs, salaries and a plethora of minor expense posts are handled using their profit/income.
It’s hardly greenwashing.
If legitimizing polluting technology by saying we’re doing such a great job at combating pollution isn’t green washing, perhaps I’ve misunderstood the term? It was certainly used against the billionaires flying to climate conferences, their argument was that they did such an important job for the environment that they should be able to fly private jets to the meetings. Others called it a green washing of their personal travel arrangements.
Your complaint just doesn’t make sense.
That’s OK, I’m not too bothered about being understood by every single person I come in contact with. Sometimes the divide between worldviews is simply too big to try to bridge.
I don’t want them to greenwash AI. So as long as a self-professed green company provides a claimed green AI I don’t agree with them.
I’ve been using them lately and haven’t seen any AI in their searches, what are you referring to?
As long as it’s not Denethor, the Steward of Gondor, it should fine.
Are you sure? I thought Denethor was one of the first Scottish High Stewards.
Just don’t let him eat any tomatoes
But do we really want someone constantly high for this?
That seems like such an odd offer. What does “stewardship” even entail?
Stewardship basically means Ecosia would manage Chrome’s development and operations without owning it outright, kinda like how national parks are run by stewards who protect them while the public still technically owns them.
Seems like it allows a non profit to assume control of a company without having to pay out funds to actually purchase it. They apparently have to reinvest all profits back into the company rather than directly benefiting from it. Though the article does mention under the proposal, some unspecified portion of Chrome profits would go toward ‘climate action’, so there’s some vague positive out of it.
Seems like it would be pretty great honestly, so I can’t imagine it’ll be accepted.
I suppose “proposal” here means proposal to some government, not to Google, and then the question is whether it’s going to be like Russia’s “Vkusno i Tochka” in place of McDonalds. Because, ahem, maintaining Chrome is not that easy.
Honestly yeah that’s even better. How great would it be to watch Chrome slowly die out while funneling money to fight climate change?
