This goes way beyond that. According to the article, this would be the equivalent of getting identified to prove you’re a real person with an unmodified web browser (presumably Chromium-based) to enable a fully-controlled browsing experience.
The closest analogy I can come up with is it’s like creating a HOA for web content. Keep your web browsing experience “gated” so it is “untainted” by extensions that block ads and/or manipulate web pages. Google is trying to make it sound like it’s holding your hand and keeping you safe, but in reality is trying to put handcuffs on your web browser.
It sounds that it actually is safer, that people for example can expect there are no malicious mitm things spying on their browsing or changing/injecting things that are malicious (like these scams lately where they ask to take over your computer and change numbers via dev tools because people don’t know what the fuck they’re looking at), but at the same time it would make things very cookie cutter. Ads everywhere, no way of changing things with client-side scripts, no looking at source code because why would you can’t change it anyway, no alternative frontends for popular websites with horrendous tracking, etc.
Of course, that is for the websites that take advantage of this technology. I can’t predict how many websites would implement this, but I hope deep down there are still websites that would not go this route and remain free to visit and browse. That will be my world wide web. I know where the web came from, taking a step back to a smaller sub-web of sorts doesn’t really scare me, it might even bring back some of that forgotten glory of what the web once was. Smaller, less content, but with heart.
Whatever websites choose to use this bullshit are websites I will no longer use. Soon someone will come up with a new internet and it will be like stepping back in time and I will welcome it.
This goes way beyond that. According to the article, this would be the equivalent of getting identified to prove you’re a real person with an unmodified web browser (presumably Chromium-based) to enable a fully-controlled browsing experience.
The closest analogy I can come up with is it’s like creating a HOA for web content. Keep your web browsing experience “gated” so it is “untainted” by extensions that block ads and/or manipulate web pages. Google is trying to make it sound like it’s holding your hand and keeping you safe, but in reality is trying to put handcuffs on your web browser.
It sounds that it actually is safer, that people for example can expect there are no malicious mitm things spying on their browsing or changing/injecting things that are malicious (like these scams lately where they ask to take over your computer and change numbers via dev tools because people don’t know what the fuck they’re looking at), but at the same time it would make things very cookie cutter. Ads everywhere, no way of changing things with client-side scripts, no looking at source code because why would you can’t change it anyway, no alternative frontends for popular websites with horrendous tracking, etc.
Of course, that is for the websites that take advantage of this technology. I can’t predict how many websites would implement this, but I hope deep down there are still websites that would not go this route and remain free to visit and browse. That will be my world wide web. I know where the web came from, taking a step back to a smaller sub-web of sorts doesn’t really scare me, it might even bring back some of that forgotten glory of what the web once was. Smaller, less content, but with heart.
Whatever websites choose to use this bullshit are websites I will no longer use. Soon someone will come up with a new internet and it will be like stepping back in time and I will welcome it.
I can see my bank using this technology and I’ve refused to install banking apps on my phone, so that would have me in a tough spot.