- Sky Cato ( @skycat@beehaw.org ) 76•1 year ago
This is why proprietary software subjugates users. Stallman is right.
- darq ( @darq@kbin.social ) 37•1 year ago
Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
Stallman was right again. - aksdb ( @aksdb@feddit.de ) 3•1 year ago
The browser engine implementing the client side of this is open source. Even the attester could be open source (because good crypto doesn’t need obscurity). Also the server side can be open source. It will still be a DRM and you still can’t do much about it, because you can’t force server/service operators to use the opensource software in a way you want. So if they want to enable WEI, they can do it. No matter if it’s proprietary or open source. Actually it’s even easier when it’s opensource.
- aeternum ( @aeternum@kbin.social ) 63•1 year ago
Firefox mother fucker, do you use it?
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 35•1 year ago
Nobody’s going to use it when 90% of the web blocks everything except genuine Chrome on genuine Windows.
- aeternum ( @aeternum@kbin.social ) 29•1 year ago
I have hope that the FTC will antitrust those cunts. At least I hope so. I’m not gonna hold my breath though.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 25•1 year ago
Microsoft put Netscape and Stac out of business and got away scot-free, so yeah, not holding my breath either.
- vriska1 ( @vriska1@lemm.ee ) English2•1 year ago
Good news there huge backlash to this so hopefully its stopped.
- philluminati ( @philluminati@lemmy.ml ) 6•1 year ago
There isn’t much backlash at all. You just live in a Lemmy and github echo chamber.
- vriska1 ( @vriska1@lemm.ee ) English1•1 year ago
Its not been pushed hard yet.
- dan ( @dan@upvote.au ) English5•1 year ago
It might still happen. Apple’s equivalent feature already rolled out in Safari.
- vriska1 ( @vriska1@lemm.ee ) English1•1 year ago
There would be huge backlash to that but do we know when Google plans to fully push this?
- MiddledAgedGuy ( @MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org ) English16•1 year ago
I’m worried there won’t be much of a backlash.
People as a whole don’t seem to care very much about the bad behavior of these big tech companies.
I hope I’m wrong.
- vriska1 ( @vriska1@lemm.ee ) English2•1 year ago
Tho there already backlash but we will see happens.
- MiddledAgedGuy ( @MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org ) English8•1 year ago
From technically savvy people, I imagine.
The average user won’t understand the implications or won’t care enough to avoid it. That alone would lead to a HUGE amount of adoption if/when they deploy this.
- vriska1 ( @vriska1@lemm.ee ) English1•1 year ago
Hopefully its never deployed.
- wiredfire ( @wiredfire@beehaw.org ) 36•1 year ago
Everyone going mad and many suggesting “if you have it use Safari instead!” when Apple implemented essentially this same thing quite some time ago in Safari 🤔
That said intentions are important. I have little faith that Big G’s goal is anything other than self servin.
- anlumo ( @anlumo@feddit.de ) English11•1 year ago
It’s a very different thing when a browser with negligible market share does that.
- Jadey () ( @snw@feddit.nl ) 8•1 year ago
Safari neglegibe? It accounts for about a third of US internet traffic and is the only browser you can even get on iOS (everything else there is forced to be just a reskin)
- evilviper ( @evilviper@beehaw.org ) 3•1 year ago
Any chance you have a link or source for this? I usually keep up on tech news but don’t remember anything of this nature.
- evilviper ( @evilviper@beehaw.org ) 3•1 year ago
Thanks, that’s interesting to read about. While I’m not a web developer, there would seem to be two very large differences between them.
-
The Apple tokens were designed for a single purpose, reducing (or eliminating) CAPCHAs, with mobile devices especially in mind. It also is not a replacement, but rather an enhancement of an existing web standard.
-
It’s Apple, a company that makes their money by selling you things you actually want. Rather than Google, a company that gives you (or other companies) things (for free or discounted) so they can make money off of you.
It is especially obvious when Google has the literal first bullet-point in their “why we are developing this” as…
This trust is the backbone of the open internet, critical for the safety of user data and for the sustainability of the website’s business.
Followed by
These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots.
So yeah, Google can kindly go pound sand as far as I’m concerned.
-
- Rentlar ( @Rentlar@beehaw.org ) 21•1 year ago
Stallman would disapprove:
- Madiator2011 ( @Madiator2011@lm.madiator.cloud ) English19•1 year ago
Google plan make people adict of their browser and now they want to dictate web standards!
- Contend6248 ( @Contend6248@feddit.de ) 18•1 year ago
That was clear when they launched their browser
- dan ( @dan@upvote.au ) 6•1 year ago
I remember when Chrome launched. It was 2008 and I was in my first year of university. People were commonly using Internet Explorer or Firefox back then, with some outliers (I used Opera). Chrome gained popularity very quickly, since it was a lot faster and lighter weight than anything else at the time.
It’s interesting that Chrome has lived long enough to see itself become the bloated browser.
- Elw ( @Elw@lemmy.sdf.org ) 17•1 year ago
Part of me wants to believe that this won’t be abused and it’ll actually make the web better. The other part of me knows better.
They could, theoretically, implement this on a way that just changes the pay structure for ad impressions but I think that all that will do is incentivize website owners using Google ads to block or nag “non-compliant” users… but here’s hoping they don’t abuse it I guess because there’s basically nothing we can do to change it once it’s out there. Genies out and all that
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 46•1 year ago
They outright said in their own press release it’s primarily to increase ad visibility by breaking ad blockers.
There’s no scenario where this makes the web better
- NutWrench ( @NutWrench@lemmy.ml ) 7•1 year ago
Yup. This won’t be used just to serve up unblocksble ads. If you’re signed in to Google, this DRM will be used to track you, as well. VPNs will be useless because the tracking won’t be done through your IP address, but through your browser, identified by DRM and tied to your Google account.
That’s what this is really about. Knowing who you are, where you are, where you go, what you see, what you buy, who you associate with. Forcing you to watch ads is just the icing on the cake.
- vriska1 ( @vriska1@lemm.ee ) English2•1 year ago
We have to see if its even fully implement and pushed in the end.