And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.

  • @Seasoned_GreetingsEnglish
    14•1 year ago

    “We won’t use it for that even though we could”

    Is just the first step in a series of corporate decisions that inevitably leads to

    “We know we said we wouldn’t, but we didn’t realize how much money we could make”

    Google took “do no evil” out of their mission statement. Why would you trust them to stick to their word and not develop this tech in a way that helps their own ad platform make money?

    • @[email protected]English
      6•1 year ago

      In my other comments, I did say that I don’t trust this proposal either. I even edited the comment you’re replying to to explain how the proposal could be used in a way to hurt adblockers.

      My issue is strictly with how the original post is framed. It’s using a sensationalized title, doesn’t attempt to describe the proposal, and doesn’t explain how the conclusion of “Google […] [wants] to introduce DRM for web pages” follows the premise (the linked proposal).

      I wouldn’t be here commenting if the post had used a better title such as “Google proposing web standard for web browser verification: a slippery slope that may hurt adblockers and the open web,” summarized the proposal, and explained the potential consequences of it being implemented.