This Microsoft app thinks Google Chrome is NSFW (Not Safe For Windows)
Microsoft has a long and underhanded history of trying to gently subvert users away from Google Chrome on Windows.
In an effort to push the Edge web browser and its Bing search engine to Google's userbase (with all the tact of a used-car salesman), Microsoft has injected pop-up ads, tricked users with a fake Google Search page, flagged other browsers as errors that need to be fixed, and potentially broken a Chrome feature by blocking it through a system update. Oopsie.
However, after years of "coincidental" issues, "unintended" behaviors, and "accidental" bugs, Microsoft may have found a way to at least cut off the youth from being indoctrinated by Google's superior search and browser... By accidentally flagging it as unsuitable using Windows 11's Family Safety feature.
In yet another unlikely turn of events that seems to benefit Microsoft's Edge browser and penalize Google's Chrome, Windows 11's Family Safety feature has been effectively blocking the world's most popular browser from opening for the better part of a month under the guise of a parental control measure.
The issue was first reported on June 3 to the r/Chrome subreddit by user Witty-Discount-2906, who claimed that following a crash, Chrome now "Just flashes quickly, unable to open with no error message."
Some time later, another Redditor suggested it was related to Windows' Parental Controls, stating, "I've had 9 students come see the IT Desk in the last hour saying Chrome won't open."
The issue was seemingly confirmed by Chrome support manager Ellen T, replying to a related post to the Google Chrome Help Community message board, stated: "Our team has investigated these reports and determined the cause of this behavior. For some users, Chrome is unable to run when Microsoft Family Safety is enabled."
According to a follow-up post, Microsoft advises that parents (or IT admins in the case of our previous Reddit sleuth) seeking a solution can use the Family Safety web portal or mobile app to select their Child's (or user's) account and choose to disable "Filter inappropriate websites" under the Edge tab.
However, while this will open up access to Chrome once more, it'll also open up access to all of the parts of the internet most parental controls seek to keep restricted.
Alternatively, admins or parents can navigate to Windows > Apps & Games, and unblock Chrome from there.
If this is a bug, it's an incredible on-brand one, and a genuine blessing. Typically, Microsoft would have to set aside engineers for weeks to plot and scheme ways to attempt to topple Chrome's popularity. This one would then have fallen into its lap for free.
According to Chromium's bug tracker, the problem persists for some, though reports have slowed. One team member shares: "We've not heard anything from MSFT about a fix being rolled out. They have provided guidance to users who contact them about how to get Chrome working again, but I wouldn't think that would have a large effect."
Narrowing down potentially affected users, the Chromium team member shares: "The set of Chrome users who are affected are those who turned on Web Safety under the Edge tab of the parental controls between roughly Nov 2024 and June 3rd."
Whether this is a fault with Chromium or with Windows 11's Family Safety feature remains to be seen. However, Microsoft will likely not see a situation that causes Edge to appear more attractive than the competition as a high-priority issue. So while we wait for a potential fix, I wouldn't blame Microsoft for dragging its heels.
Google's latest Gemini 2.5 models are its biggest response to ChatGPT yet — and they're already live
My favorite AI tool just hit Google Search, and it's actually useful — try it yourself
Banking Trojans have hit millions of Android devices in 2025 — here are the biggest threats and how to protect yourself
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Android Authority
17 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Here's why everyone is using YouTube Music — even if they don't love it!
Joe Maring / Android Authority Not many years ago, if you mentioned YouTube Music in a room full of long-time Google Play Music users, you could probably hear their collective sigh from space. Google retired its beloved service in 2020 and replaced it with something that, at the time, felt underbaked to be a true music player. Fast-forward to 2025, and while the groans haven't completely died down, nearly everyone we know, including our readers, is using YouTube Music. This revelation came straight from an open discussion we're currently running on Android Authority. With over 8,000 votes and counting, the majority of respondents say that YouTube Music is their music streaming service of choice, not Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, or anything else. YouTube Music has emerged as the king, albeit not the most elegant ruler, but a practical one that people appreciate for its convenience. What is your current music streaming platform? 8532 votes YouTube Music 79 % Spotify 12 % Apple Music 3 % Deezer 1 % Tidal 2 % Amazon Music 1 % Pandora 1 % Another service (mention in the comments) 1 % The numbers make sense Joe Maring / Android Authority You have to admit that making YouTube Music a part of the YouTube Premium subscription was a genius move by Google. We definitely expected some strong opinions when we asked our readers about their preferred streaming service, but what we didn't expect was an overwhelming pattern that emerged. People aren't picking YouTube Music because of its vast music library or algorithmic genius. They're picking it because it makes the most sense economically. 'YT Music does everything I want and more at an affordable price (which includes YouTube Premium),' remarked another, in a long list of comments that echo the same sentiments. The YouTube Premium family plan is the real hook 'Can't beat the cost of YTM when you have a family plan,' a reader said. Cost-efficiency is one of the top reasons why people pick YouTube Music over other music streaming services. Not only does a YouTube Premium plan give you free access to millions of YouTube Music songs ad-free, offline, and while your screen is locked, but the YouTube Premium family plan is the real hook. For $22.99 per month, you can use YouTube Music without ads on up to five accounts! That's a tough one to beat for the likes of Spotify, which also offers a family plan, but one that doesn't come with a tasty side of YouTube Premium. It's not love, it's logistics Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority For many YouTube Music users, the journey began with Google Play Music's forced retirement, followed by the chaotic migration to YouTube Music. Playlists were moved, preferences were ported (sometimes badly), and the new interface took a lot of getting used to. In fact, some folks never got used to it at all. And yet, they stayed. That's because years of their accumulated music on Google Play Music moved to YouTube Music. One of our readers said, 'I use it because it's where all my music from Google Play Music went. I absolutely detest any algorithm for music. The vast majority of what I listen to is music I have bought or the 500 CDs I own and uploaded to GPM.' Clearly, when Google Play Music was migrated to YouTube Music, people didn't just want to lose all their valuable collections painfully built over time, so they stuck with YouTube Music and have been hanging on ever since. YouTube Music: The unofficial king of local, live, and forgotten content Joe Hindy / Android Authority A big advantage YouTube Music has over most global streaming giants is the availability of regional, live, obscure, and old music. The streaming service decidedly excels at it. Android Authority readers (including yours truly) acknowledge how nearly impossible it is to find specific live music, covers, local songs, old, forgotten tracks, and music from smaller countries on Spotify or Apple Music. You know where those songs almost always do exist? YouTube Music. 'One area where YouTube Music really stands out is the sheer volume of original albums available. My primary interest is the original rock era of 1964-1980. YouTube Music has virtually every original studio album from that era, by artists that matter,' said a reader. YouTube Music is a treasure trove for indie music lovers. Because YouTube Music pulls directly from YouTube's massive video library, including fan uploads, niche recordings, and regional hits, it becomes a treasure trove for indie music lovers. If someone in your country uploaded a remix of an old classic? You'll probably find it on YouTube Music. 'All the services have at least one thing where they excel over others; it just depends on what value you place on the differing features. In YTM's case, it's the ability to find live versions of tracks that I like the most. Other platforms will outperform it in other areas (such as streaming quality), but I place a high value on listening to live music, so it's the best option for me (that, plus I already pay for YT Premium anyway),' noted another reader. This is where the platform quietly wins hearts. Not with fancy recommendations or slick design, but with simple access to stuff that actually matters to you. So why aren't people raving about YouTube Music? Despite all this, very few people claim to actually really 'love' YouTube Music. It's not the darling of Reddit discussions. It doesn't drop surprise features that get headlines (unless you're into AI-generated playlists). Its recommendations algorithm, streaming quality, and UI still spark debates. And yes, some erstwhile Google Play Music users still feel stuck, with no other alternative. If you're a die-hard Spotify fan or an Apple Music lover, we get it. These platforms offer polish, clever integrations, better connectivity, and great personalized recommendations. But YouTube Music is everyman's streamer, and it's only getting better. It's the 'eh, might as well' option that just so happens to make sense financially, culturally, and practically.
Android Authority
25 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Wear OS 6 fixes the most annoying thing about always-on displays, and I couldn't be more excited
Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority After years as a power-draining setting with significant limitations, the always-on display on Wear OS smartwatches is finally getting a glow-up. Hitting wrists via Wear OS 6, a redesigned always-on display (AOD) will now offer more functionality, adding key controls to the screen. As someone who spends way too much time flicking my wrist just to perform basic actions, I couldn't be happier. How important is an improved always-on display experience for you? 0 votes Very, I can't wait. NaN % Not very, I dont mind it the way it is. NaN % I dont use the AOD. NaN % In its developer documentation, Google confirmed that Wear OS 6 will 'consolidate existing solutions to deliver a more consistent always-on experience across devices.' In practice, that means Wear OS watches will continue to display important details even when your wrist is down. The display will retain control screens, instead of fading into a basic clock face, and honestly, it's about time (no pun intended). This might sound like a small UI tweak, but it's actually a fundamental shift in how I'll be able to use my go-to wearables. Google is baking more AOD usability directly in as a standard feature, and the example the company provided is one of the best use cases I can think of: tappable media controls visible on the ambient screen (displayed using a low-power outline design that fits the aesthetic). That means no more exaggerated arm raises trying to skip a track mid-workout, and tipping my balance on the treadmill precariously. No more wrist flicks in frustration in the middle of the road when I want to check something mid-ride. I've honestly lost count of how many times I've glanced at my watch while cooking, hoping to quickly pause my audiobook while I check a recipe note, only to be met with a static screen. I'm elated that Google is baking more AOD functionality directly into Wear OS 6. Of course, the update also goes beyond media controls. I'm also excited about the ability to use my watch's AOD more broadly as a glanceable and interactive interface, not just a low-power placeholder. Google confirmed that users' top activity will remain visible and 'in a resumed state' during ambient mode, suggesting the watch will offer more functionality right on the always-on screen. For me, this would make enabling always-on a much more worthwhile battery life trade-off. This isn't some flashy, headline-grabbing update, but it's exactly the kind of thoughtful polish I hope for as each launch season approaches. Large-scale, sweeping changes are one thing, but tiny, thoughtful user experience improvements are equally appreciated.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
DOJ Antitrust chief is betting American tech will beat China
Gail Slater, Donald Trump's head of antitrust, is tasked with a formidable agenda that requires precision: Foster a business-friendly environment that lets tech companies stay big enough to compete with China while ensuring they don't become excessively dominant. 'It's about enforcing antitrust robustly in a way that works for all Americans … that's my starting point,' Slater, 53, told me in her first interview since taking on her role as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice a little over 100 days ago. Slater took over a serious docket of cases that includes suits against Google, in regards to search and ad tech; Apple, for its smartphone market dominance; Visa, in relation to debit card payment processing; and Live Nation/Ticketmaster and its live entertainment business. 4 Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Gail Slater tells me the crux of her job is 'enforcing antitrust robustly in a way that works for all Americans.' Bloomberg via Getty Images While she won't comment on the status of those cases, she's been a key advisor urging Trump to stay the course on antitrust enforcement — despite tech companies' efforts to sway him. (When I asked how frequently she discusses agenda with President Trump, she told me, 'We get a lot of signals from the White House in the form of Executive Orders.') Slater is deeply committed and believes aggressive antitrust enforcement can benefit consumers in countless ways — even on seemingly unrelated issues. 'Speech and the censorship of speech can be downstream of [tech companies] market power,' she noted. Not everyone on the right agrees with her. Some Republicans, like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), believe the US government should tread lightly with tech companies. They worry that too much regulation could unintentionally give China a dangerous advantage when it comes to artificial intelligence. 4 While tech titans, like Meta's Mark Zuckerberg (far left) and Google's Sundar Pichai (center in glasses) have cozied up to the Trump Administration, they aren't immune to regulation. AP But Slater feels antitrust efforts could actually give the US a leg-up. 'Companies competing against one another innovate. That's the free market at its finest,' she explained. 'We can win the AI race against the Chinese without becoming like China… we will win the global race to AI the American way.' Bringing cases against massive companies can cost millions, making Slater's job — at a time when everyone in the federal government is under the gun to cut costs — especially challenging. 'The big tech cases alone are a huge, huge lift, both from a human resource standpoint, a scale standpoint when it comes to documents and experts and how we put those cases on a trial,' Slater said. This story is part of NYNext, an indispensable insider insight into the innovations, moonshots and political chess moves that matter most to NYC's power players (and those who aspire to be). Her efforts, she said, have to be 'low resource, high return on investment things.' And even though she is focused on ending unfair monopolies, she's also trying to implement as many pro-business policies as she can. On the front end, Slater is now allowing early terminations to the (previously) mandatory 30-day waiting period for mergers to close on deals the DOJ deems benign. Since taking the helm, she has granted 58 of 322 filings, worth $71 billion. 'In particular, we are taking settlements in merger cases where the previous administration took none,' she said. 4 Gail Slater is now allowing early terminations to the (previously) mandatory 30-day waiting period for mergers to close on deals the DOJ deems benign REUTERS At the back end of deals, she has embraced the use of consent decrees — allowing parties to resolve competitive overlaps by divesting assets to qualified buyers, a practice the prior administration largely avoided. 'We listened hard to concerns that Wall Street and others had about the policy of the prior administration on deal flow,' she told me of efforts to simplify rules where she can. 'We inherited a historic docket and we want to be responsible stewards of that, But we're also setting [the agenda] by fixing the merger review process to make it more transparent, to make work better for deal makers.' Slater, who is soft-spoken, jokes 'this is me raising my voice' when talking about the efforts they've already made to cut over-regulation. She has also teamed up with the Federal Trade Commission to eradicate what she describes as 'useless' regulations. 'We opened up a docket and we said to anybody interested with expertise in the area, tell us the regulations that you're aware that are hindering competition — and the ways in which that could be fixed. Because we want to support free market competition,' Slater said. 'That's the goal here.' 4 In a Truth Social post, Donald Trump made it clear that fighting Big Tech is a key priority for Slater. Donald J. Trump / Truth Social Another tool is using amicus briefs to strategically influence federal court cases, like they have done in Texas v. BlackRock — a high-profile antitrust lawsuit where states allege major investors like BlackRock colluded to reduce coal production, raising energy prices. She said it is a way of supporting American companies and administration policies with relatively inexpensive but high-impact interventions. Slater, who was born in Dublin and studied at Oxford, moved to the US in 2003 and worked as a trial attorney at the FTC for a decade. She held positions at the Internet Association, Fox Corporation, Roku and, during the first Trump administration, the National Economic Council, before advising JD Vance on antitrust issues while he was an Ohio senator. She's excited moving beyond the cases left to her by her predecessor. 'A priority for me is health care,' she told me. 'We're looking to set a positive agenda around drug pricing and health care more broadly. Send NYNext a tip: nynextlydia@
