You must log in or register to comment.
Oh, so this third party would rat you out for having an adblocker and websites would be like, “naahhhhh”
I say no to this.
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.
Whatever google does is bad pretty much.
I’ve been seeing a lot of shit about google being evil lately… I’m actively transitioning off their products. I’ve now got Firefox on my phone (I fucking can’t do safari, it’s so trash), I’m off android (about a year now) which was super fucking difficult. iOS is much worse, and they aren’t that much better as a company, but it gets updates for more than 2 years…but I hear Linux phones are improving so that will probably be my next move.
My next step is getting rid of gmail which I’ve been on basically since it was launched… that’s going to be painful.
Just switch to proton mail. I pay for it so the expectation is set for no ads and the like.
Apple definitely isn’t better as a company. Apple lobby’s the US government to ensure they can still use slave labor.
I through all that myself. Except on the phone front I went GrapheneOS & LineageOS. There’s nothing wrong with base Android (the problems with Android are added by Google, Samsung, etc at downstream steps)
And I agree that Gmail was hard to leave. But I went ProtonMail and had Gmail forward there for awhile until eventually nothing was going through Gmail anymore.
This infuriates me
r/nobodyasked
This is not reddit.
he typed, on the copycat of r/privacy
c/nobodyasked, feeling better now? 🤣
deleted by creator
Well, then what does apple use it for? Since there’s already an implementation out there we should have a pretty good idea of what the future holds with widespread adoption?
The scary part is this could role out to chrome and most people wouldn’t know the difference
I have to ask this, if I use grapheneOS with a Firefox browser like mull and my search engine isn’t google, do I have to give a fuck about this DRM bullshit?
