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 post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
287 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
74359 readers
2652 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 is a fact that the company is registered as a non-profit.
Being a non-profit means that the owners of the company can collect a salary but cannot collect profits(income in excess of operating expenses). The owners of the company cannot collect profit, it is a non-profit company.
All of the income, in excess of expenses (aka profit) is given to charitable causes. If it were a for-profit company, the all of the income in excess of expenses (aka profit) would be divided amongst the owners and shareholders.
Every non-profit company in every western country has operating expenses including salaries. Unless you’re trying to say that non-profits don’t exist, then this argument is also nonsense.
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?
A private jet is polluting technology because it directly generates tons of carbon in order to operate. It is used in place of other transportation methods which would generate less carbon
How is AI polluting technology?
Just declaring it is polluting doesn’t make it true. A computer takes in electricity and emits heat and data.
This company generates twice as much renewable energy as they consume. They also plant trees (over 200 million) which capture carbon, reduce aridification and increase rainfall. The net result is that this non-profit adds, carbon free, electricity to the grid, increases carbon capture and storage and adds water to the hydrological cycle.
Sometimes the divide between worldviews is simply too big to try to bridge.
That’s often the case when you consume misinformation.
It's literally zero thinking "AI always bad" insanity.
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?
We can't just get an open standard because corpos will attack it or try to take ownership.