• m-p{3}
    link
    fedilink
    2351 year ago

    I’ll keep using Firefox and be extremely vocal about websites that won’t support it. I mean that’s all I can really do.

    • wootz
      link
      1601 year ago

      And hope the EU will oppose it.

      • Niello
        link
        fedilink
        1411 year ago

        EU really is the one doing all the good work. Meanwhile, the US government is useless as a government for its size.

          • @WhatAmLemmy
            link
            341 year ago

            Why aren’t the vaccuous, corporate whore sociopaths defending our freedoms!?!

        • Dandroid
          link
          fedilink
          461 year ago

          Maybe if our politicians weren’t fucking 80 years old and actually understood technology even a little bit.

          • @thesohoriots
            link
            111 year ago

            “Here’s our millennial expert on technology to explain it to us. Thank you for being here.”

            “No problem.”

            “WHAT”

          • monk
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            … they’d know what exact nasty deeds they’re being paid for? How does that help you?

            First of all, you need accountable politicians that serve their nation. Age, while it’s important, is not of prime importance.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          9
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Basically they have made themselves kings and everyone else are peasants. Now they are dividing the land between them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        Why would they? It’s FrEE maRKeT. Google can point to Edge and Safari as proof that they don’t have a monopoly on browsers, so no anti-trust issue there no sireee. The fact that Edge is based on Chromium does not factor into this (in fact the EU loves it, just look at what they did to “liberalize” the electricity market, aside from some extremely anecdotal stories, it’s all companies whose only job is to build a website and the fiscal “infrastructure” to buy energy from state-controlled producers to resell it at a markup using state-controlled energy distributors, but hey there is a private middleman so it’s liberal and the innovation/investment dividends will pay out any year now… any year…).

        The concept of the WWW being supported by free, standard, interoperable protocols was never codified into law. Despite how much good it has done so many industries to have a common free interoperable tech stack, it doesn’t have to be this way; the French Minitel was a walled garden built by France Telecom, and that was 100% legal, because interoperability is not a legal requirement. The Apple Store and Game Consoles work under the same principle, you basically can’t sell anything on there without abiding by some asinine rules (Apple has had some issues but IIRC that has to do with them abusing their monopoly position to extract 30 % of all sales, not with the fact that they have an exclusive App Store to begin with).

        Also this whole bullshit is not new and was never legally challenged because there is no case. For years you could not even browse instagram in your browser because they “only supported the mobile app”, which was a blatant way to force you into a walled garden where they can force you to watch as many ads as they want and where scraping is much harder.

    • wagesof
      link
      fedilink
      451 year ago

      I expect we’ll lose about 90% of the web within five years as this becomes normalized.

      It will primarily be the seo driven AI crap driven ripoff regurgitated shitfest that’s arisen in the last 5 years tho.

      I’ll be waiting for a search engine to arise that only shows user controllable presentation and will use that.

      A way to filter out the corporate trash will make the human web better, not worse.

      • @kibiz0r
        link
        91 year ago

        Yeah, this is pretty much my take.

        The web sites that are interested in this tool never wanted to be actual web sites. They wanted to be closed client-server systems with proprietary, opaque protocols… HTTP was just a convenient implementation to leverage.

        What WEI does is basically allow all of these wanna-be walled gardens to become actual walled gardens.

        They never wanted to be interoperable in the first place, so what are we losing? Good riddance.

        Maybe with this in place, we’ll be able to start rebuilding the interoperable web that we had before VC money took it over.

        We just need a compelling business model for it. “Free” ad-supported is toxic for open discourse, and now it’s functionally deprecated on the open web. I think that’s a good thing, but good changes are not necessarily easy to endure.

        I’m not sure how we’ll do it. Attention tokens and all that crypto stuff seems like garbage, but having a thousand different subscriptions to get past paywalls is not great either.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        I expect we’ll lose about 90% of the web within five years

        Which part? I feel it will be part I don’t even want. I might be forced to use that part for work, but that will be nice filter.

        I was thinking that “they” ( governments and big corporations) should have their own internet which is clean and ordered and “safe” and leave us on other part. This might be a way to achieve that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      You might want to recommend forks of Firefox too. Part of the reason Chrome/Chromium is dominant is because of its forks, and a fork of Firefox might appeal to someone more than the main browser. I use Pulse, but Waterfox is also solid from what I’ve heard.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      I mean that’s all I can really do.

      Unfortunately when my bank or other critical institution rejects Firefox for failure to use attestation, I can’t even do that. I’ll be forced to use Chrome. Firefox would have to adopt WEI to remain compatible. In that case I can use Firefox, but it would be the same as using Chrome.

      I’d say the monopoly Google has with Chrome is way more threatening than in the early 2000’s with MS and IE. That threat resulted in an anti-trust lawsuit, but not a peep from any government about the destruction Google is doing.

      • @Contravariant
        link
        91 year ago

        Not much you can do about institutions you have no control over, but surely you could go to a different bank?

        Assuming there is a bank that doesn’t use this of course.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        I‘m old so i actually remember this but I‘m old so my memory might be shit but wasn‘t the lawsuit about the fact that microsoft shipped IE wirth windows as a default browser and not about it being too dominant?

      • @TrickDacy
        link
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d say the monopoly Google has with Chrome is way more threatening than in the early 2000’s with MS and IE. That threat resulted in an anti-trust lawsuit, but not a peep from any government about the destruction Google is doing.

        Took the words right out of my mouth. I don’t even know that eu cares. Google is as evil as everyone feared if not worse. Apple is pretty bad too, not even allowing any browser but their own on mobile. People don’t realize it, but browser choice is actually a huge deal when it comes to causing damage to society (or protecting it)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I know I’m just dreaming, but I really like the Gemini protocol and hope it’ll grow and develop more. It doesn’t have everything, but it’s very close to the "old web’.

    • appel
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Is Brave safe from these shenanigans? Asking for a friend.

      • 133arc585
        link
        fedilink
        301 year ago

        Brave is built on Chromium. So, by default, no they are not safe from this. Without extra effort, Brave will have this feature. I don’t know if its feasible but there’s a chance the Brave devs can remove the code from their distribution, but that’s the best case scenario and just puts them in the same position as Firefox: they get locked out because they refuse to implement the spec.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Brave devs have stated that their fork of chromium is essentially degoogled, detracked,etc. Just the browser core and built from there… They don’t automatically add in new features into their fork just because chromium does.

          • 133arc585
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            I see, thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure about the specifics of how they produce their product from the upstream source.

          • 133arc585
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            It may be dead to its users anyway depending on how forceful Google is with this. If Brave doesn’t work on 98.8% of all websites with advertising or indeed on 49.5% of all websites (approximately Google’s ad network’s reach), it becomes as niche as lynx.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            No brave users don‘t care. Brave proved how untrustworthy they are and in any case their business model is unethical yet they still have a cult like following plus a group of crypto bros that are obsessed with getting digital pennies.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    178
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It may be the last few years of the free web because of Google. Their goals are clear.

    Please switch to Firefox, another search engine and another email provider…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      40
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve long been trying to de-googlify myself, but it’s certainly ramped up this year. Been trying out Kagi and just set up proton mail account. Not sure what I’ll land on in the end but it’s nice trying out newer services.

      • @nomadjoanne
        link
        121 year ago

        It is hard when you have a business. You really have to actively try to stay away from them. They control so much business infrastructure.

        I know my business partner (god bless him, great friend but…) is super into big tech and every new product they offer. So it’s a bit of an uphill battle.

        And I’m lucky. I own my own firm. Most people don’t have such a luxury.

        • SokathHisEyesOpen
          link
          fedilink
          151 year ago

          Google server infrastructure products are almost universally worse than Amazon’s. The interfaces, APIs, and documentation look like they were designed by people who don’t understand humanity.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            Most importantly, they are designed by people that don’t use them. Amazon uses AWS themselves, Google doesn’t use GCP.

          • wagesof
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            At least they’re not as bad as Microsoft. Azure is a goddamn dog with fleas.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        It’s not too hard. The most important things are web search and email. I still use Google Maps. But I don’t want my private emails and searches at a company who is user hostile and preditory.

        • noughtnaut
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          I quite disagree, it is very hard. Sure, switching search engine takes all of two seconds, and email can be had from many vendors free and commercial.

          But calendaring! A calendar that is at least somewhat integrated with am email client, supports more than one actual calendar, and has real-world capability to share them with others - “if you succeed in this, two me how.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            My calendaring needs might be less restrictive than yours, but Proton offers a nice calendar that from what I understand offers at least some integration with their e-mail client. Have you checked it out?

            I use Nextcloud self-maintained on a VPS myself for all my calendaring needs, which is basically keeping track of appointments, syncing via CalDAV to my phone, as well as sharing some sub-calendars with other people. Setting up a Nextcloud-server is admittedly a bit more hassle than just signing up for a service, but also here there are options of making it a bit easier than hosting yourself.

            I find Google Maps by far the hardest service to rid myself off, followed by Gmail (the time it takes!!! Been using Proton for two years, still not completely rid of my Gmail-account). I’m slowly getting used to using OSM-based map services more and more.

          • samsy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            CalDav? Integrated in nextcloud. Or Mailcow. Why does it needs to be integrated with e-mail? Thunderbird is able to add all invitations or reminders into my CalDav Account.

            • noughtnaut
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Fastmail

              Ohh, this does indeed look quite fantastic. I am certainly going to look more into this. Thank you!

              _Edit: Ah, but $50/user/year. For the whole family that adds up real fast. Still, nice tip.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        I found out about Kagi from another Lemmy user and I’ve been really impressed. I feel like I’m getting better results than Google. I’m using their Personalized Results feature and it helps a ton!

    • @LeHappStick
      link
      11 year ago

      Any recommendations for free email providers?

      • Cryptic Fawn
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Any recommendations for free email providers?

        I’m using proton. I like it a lot.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nothing is free. How would they make money as a company to pay employees and pay hosting bills?

        All these big tech companies are free exactly because they are preditory on users.

        Pay for good email like Fastmail or Proton.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          I understand the sentiment, but email is a necessary part of modern life and not everyone has the luxury of paying for it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            A lot of things are necessary parts of modern live and you also have to pay for it, a mobile plan for your smartphone for example.

            • Cryptic Fawn
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I had a smartphone but not a mobile plan for years. People can get very creative when times are tough.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                Don’t get me wrong, I think everybody should have the guarantee for social participation, I’m just saying that Email is no exception. If you did not have a mobile plan for whatever reason, you were just not participating.

                • Cryptic Fawn
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Not really; I could do everything everyone else was doing; just not make phone calls or send sms texts. I used wifi to connect to the net and I could still make emergency calls. Im actually considering going back to that to save money, lol.

        • carly™
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I mean, Proton, which you just mentioned, also has a free tier, which is just as usable as Gmail is for 90% of people, myself included.

      • Hutch
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Register your own domain name with Gandi and they gift you free email with a choice of two webmail interfaces. It’s really good, and owning the domain name enables moving to a different provider later if you wish.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            42
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That will work until websites start requiring it. At that point browsers like Firefox have to either capitulate and implement Google’s DRM or become unusable for the majority of websites.

            And then we’ll have a web where the corporations have complete control over what you can view and how. Ad blocking and anti-tracking will be things of the past, and corporate websites will have a unique key from your browser to help them track you around the web. And no more hiding your identity behind anonymous browsers over Tor or VPNs.

            So we found out about this about 4 days ago, and when people objected they shut down people’s ability to log issues or comment on the GitHub repo. And now they’re already cramming it into their browser. This is strong evidence that Google knows it’s unpopular and tried to keep it under wraps as long as possible so they could get it into the browser before people had time to react.

            • @eek2121
              link
              61 year ago

              Let them require it. Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

              I can also see Apple taking a stand against this. They have a competing (and much more reasonable) implementation that respects user privacy.

              • 133arc585
                link
                fedilink
                101 year ago

                Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

                If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google’s ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google’s ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Even if the effects didn’t go this far (which I agree they quite probably will), it wouldn’t be feasible for other search engines to just exclude sites that implemented Google’s DRM. If Google makes it attractive enough to the owners of major sites to implement this (and it will be attractive if it ensures they get ad views), then no one will use a search engine that omits all the most popular websites. The same goes for non-Google browsers. This is really a shocking attempt by Google to use its own browser’s popularity to seize an effective monopoly of the web.

          • MentalEdge
            link
            fedilink
            17
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No. The only way “around it” is to give up and use Chrome.

            Everything else will have to dance to Google’s tune to access any website that implements this, and that will at very least include Google’s own websites.

            • @HollandJim
              link
              31 year ago

              Okay then, then I don’t use it, stick to Safari and phone call anyone who requires me using their site with Chrome. Or I’ll go elsewhere. I’ve been down this road with IE before…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        64
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Web dev here. It enforces the original markup and code from a server to be the markup and code that the browser interprets and executes, preventing any post-loading modifications.

        That sounds a bit dry, but the implications are huge. It means:

        • ad blockers won’t work (the main reason for Google’s ploy)
        • many, if not most, other browser extensions won’t work (eg.: accessibility, theming, anti-malware)
        • people are going to start running into a lot of scam ads that ad blockers would otherwise prevent
        • malicious websites will be able to operate with impunity since you cannot run security extensions to prevent them
        • web developers are going to be crippled for lack of debugging ability

        These are just a few things off the top of my head. There are endless and very dangerous implications to WEI. This is very, very bad for the web and antithesis of how it’s supposed to be.

        TBL is probably experiencing a sudden disturbance in the force.

        • Peruvian_Skies
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          Wouldn’t it be possible to create some kind of “post-browser” that takes input from the web browser and displays it after passing it through ad blockers and whatever else?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            111 year ago

            Such an abstraction, while unnecessary, should be possible, providing that Google doesn’t forcibly prevent access to the final markup that coalesces (ie.: view source and web dev tools)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              The only acceptable browser would obviously be ones that restrict that access, how else are they going to force people to see all their ads?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Perhaps, but it’s not as simple as it sounds.

            Most of the Web requires js to work. I don’t think the js will work without the DRM.

            So the proxy would need to be running the js, and emulate your clicks and so on.

        • TipRing
          link
          51 year ago

          Would this impact web proxies at all? If so, that would entail a pretty huge security change for a lot of corporations.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            If it’s something like a proxy server that pre-modifies the markup/code, then yes, I can see WEI interfering with that.

      • @Nia
        link
        51
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          311 year ago

          If this becomes heavily used, I will probably go back to reading books for entertainment instead of browsing the web.

        • @DrQuint
          link
          81 year ago

          So basically, anyone consuming the internet in any shape or form other than the intended by corporate owners is automatically dead in the water.

          Man, I can’t go back to ad-full, sponsor-skipless youtube… It’s too awful.

          • @Nia
            link
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            deleted by creator

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        391 year ago

        It’s a way to disable ad blockers.

        Presently web servers send data to your browser, which can arrange the content however you wish, because it’s your browser on your device. Excluding content you don’t like is fairly trivial.

        This drm stuff will basically make the browser refuse to display anything unless the whole page is unaltered.

        • Zaneak
          link
          fedilink
          161 year ago

          Does unaltered include things like colorblind extension that change colors to more easily differentiate between some red/green for example? Or stuff like reddit enhancement suite? Sounds like a good way to kill other possible useful extensions.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            That’s exactly what it will do. Don’t believe the bullshit in their “non-goals” section, they don’t give a fuck. If accessibility extensions happen to continue working (at least temporarily), it will be by accident, because they for damn sure aren’t going to spend even a second on compatibility.

            • @DrQuint
              link
              51 year ago

              Shit man, this would ruin even the small internet. I won’t even be able to cheat on dragcave. And most of what I was doing was keeping a tally of my collection since the site doesn’t do that. But there’s no way page modifications wouldn’t be caught and punished no matter what they actually do.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        101 year ago

        Imagine you’re a builder and you build a store (website). People can come into your store through the door or window. WEI will make sure you come through the door just as the builder intended.

        At face value, that sounds fine, but now imagine that builder puts a maze (all of the ads littered on a webpage) on the other side of the door. It’s a pain in the ass to get through and someone (adblock) has told you about the window that lets you skip the maze. You can get what you want and the store gets to sell a thing. Everyone’s happy except the maze builder (Google), so they’re trying to force the entire world to go through the maze.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      There might have be a time when Google tried not to be evil, but they’ve been Satin himself for a good number of years now. It just took them a while to realize the irony of their mission statement. It’s funny I used to get mad at Microsoft for being evil, but they’ve got nothing on Google.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1331 year ago

    There’s a “we told you this would happen” going on here.

    If chromium didn’t have a monopoly amongst browsers, they would have a much harder time pushing this through.

    Imagine everyone using a browser built by an advertising company.

    • @Goodie
      link
      411 year ago

      That’s not even the biggest level of “we told you this would happen.”

      They pulled this shit previously with other standards (WebHID). Where they proposed a terrible standard, and then implemented it ignoring all feedback. Only last time it played out over months, and this time… weeks?

      Sweet jesus.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I moved to FF the same time I found out about the DRM shit. It takes literally 10 minutes and the only thing FF lacks is tab groups. Not a big loss compared to a stupid bigtech telling me what I can use.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        FF has tab containers which, while I haven’t used much myself, seem pretty similar to tab groups from a quick search. Edit: Also looks like there’s “Simple tab groups” extension which maybe even more similar to what you may want

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Containers have nothing to do with tab groups. One is an organisation tool and the other is a privacy tool.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem is that Mozilla dropped the ball so hard, by focusing on making their C-staff into millionaires instead of making a good product, that it no longer matters. Their market share is so small that Firefox compatibility no longer matters.

        Soon websites will require that DRM and either Firefox will implement it or it will be unable to render those websites.

        • @teamevil
          link
          11 year ago

          Firefox is awesome and I never switched to chrome because Google is the devil

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            The only use chrome gets on a fresh phone before deactivation is installing Firefox. Same for IE

            I’ve used Firefox since it was Netscape and it’s been a fun ride

    • @what_is_a_name
      link
      51 year ago

      To be honest - easy to pull a Microsoft a fork a branch without the crap.

  • appel
    link
    fedilink
    56
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ohnonono Well time to burn down google I guess ¯\(ツ)

  • Bappity
    link
    561 year ago

    this is a userbase killer right here

    • Bad3r
      link
      fedilink
      311 year ago

      If manifest 3 didn’t change egoogke chrome share I doubt this will.

      • deweydecibel
        link
        171 year ago

        Manifest 3 didn’t create noticable chnages for the average user. Not yet anyway.

        The idea is these changes are never a full at first. The internet will not break tomorrow because of integrity checking.

        But it will in a few years. And people will be upset then. When it’s far too late.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    471 year ago

    hey everyone a friendly reminder that alternatives exist, and just drop this shit fast and move to better alternatives. In this case firefox.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      571 year ago

      The problems start to happen when buisnesses adopt this en masse. Expect all banks to implement this for example. You can use Firefox all you want, but then you won’t be able to do online banking.

      Standards are really fucking important to help people stay functional in a society. This is one area that the ANCAP mindset just gets it totally wrong, unless you like the idea of being a hermit.

      Anyway, we are already seeing some websites basically reject browsers like Firefox because they basically give the consumer too much protection and freedom. Arguably we’ve seen this before, but this may be a new tier of corporate lockout of open standards as consumer protection gets thrown in the trash. Thanks America.

      • deweydecibel
        link
        251 year ago

        This needs to be pinned at the top of every single threat about this. Far too many people are just saying “Well I’ll just keep using Firefox”. They do not understand the gravity of the issue.

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        If my bank does this I’ll take my custom to a smaller one that doesn’t.

        I don’t think they will though, since they gave me a hardware thingy to login to my online banking from my rooted android 🫠

        • @GlitzyArmrest
          link
          131 year ago

          Mozilla does not exist because of Google. Google doesn’t have controlling power over Mozilla, nor do they have power over the many forks. It’s hilarious that you think a company would give a shit about being a monopoly; that’s what they strive for. This stupid take has been going around for years, and I’m sad to see it spread to Lemmy.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            They give a shit about not being a monopoly because if they were, they’d be broken up so they’re not one anymore. At least currently still.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh, you. I remember you from another thread the other week, saying how Chromium is not Chrome and that this would never happen. Hi. It is happening. Also, I remember telling you to stop moving goalposts, which is what you are doing here.

          Microsoft would be happy to pay Firefox to set Bing as default (has happened in the past already) so even your goalpost moving is moot.

          Come on, wake up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      When websites start blocking clients that don’t implement the wei handshake, you’ll be forced to use one that does if you want to visit those sites. Firefox will either adopt it or become a second rate browser.

      • BoscoBear
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        Websites should be able to block me. I can just go elsewhere.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              Most banking apps don’t work on rooted Android phones. It’s not the same, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that at least these companies would force their customers to use specific software…

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                And I use my root to hide my root from my banking app… Idk about the implementation details of this, but I kinda think the same could happen here as well.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is the problem for me. If my bank or other critical institution decides to refuse me access with Firefox, I can’t use Firefox. This is the crux of the issue. Google is creating a browser monopoly with it’s market dominance and attestation scheme.

            MS tried to exert control in the early 2000’s with its IE dominance and was thwarted by an anti-trust lawsuit. Google will probably skate on this one. Nowadays the consumer is only a resource to be plundered. The customer is shit.

    • @HollowNotion
      link
      41 year ago

      As pointed out above, individual use of Firefox doesn’t really do that much. Especially when Firefox already doesn’t work properly for some sites. Plus, lots of people (myself included) need to use Chrome for work. This shit sucks.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        Have you used Firefox recently? I haven’t had even one instance of a website not working simply because of Firefox.

        • @HollowNotion
          link
          11 year ago

          I use it daily. It’s my default browser, but it ain’t perfect. Most recently, it was an interactive map for Diablo IV that would never work on Firefox. After an update it started working, but that’s just the most recent example.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            it is pretty rare for issues like that to happen. and just keep a chromium based browser installed for the 0.2% of websites with compatibility problems or whatever.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        for work purposes, ok fine. but personal purposes i’d try and steer clear as much as i can.

        My general point is we should use alternatives whenever possible to discourage this kind of centralized power developing in the first place.

        • @HollowNotion
          link
          11 year ago

          I do agree with that. I use Firefox on my home pc and safari on my MacBook, for precisely this reason.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I’m do not experience any of these improper working sites. My daily driver is Librewolf, where this sometimes occur, but when it does, I just switch to vanilla Firefox, and everything is fine.

  • deweydecibel
    link
    461 year ago

    As an aside, I know we’re not supposed to care about Reddit, but the lack of this news getting any attention over there is just depressing. Hell the Firefox sub hasn’t had any posts in days apparently.

  • @Fpsfrank85
    link
    361 year ago

    Could there be lawsuits over this?

    • YⓄ乙
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      If there will be, google is powerful than most governments. They know there will be some lawsuit and they are prepared for it. Its just cost of doing business.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        331 year ago

        Google isn’t more powerful than any governments it’s just the USA that allows them to have power.

        • YⓄ乙
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Dude they have all the data on you and your circle of friends. What you share? What was shared with you, all the stuff you can possibly imagine.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I’m not sure how they have this when I only use e2e encrypted communication to share stuff with my friends and none of us use their services.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        No they aren’t, the US just makes them look that way. I’m sure many european countries will object to and fight this.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Not directly but this could be an antitrust case in some places.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Reasonable people will disagree… but no, probably not. This is a feature which websites can choose to use in the same way that websites can choose to use notifications. Even if you dislike the fact that web browsers provide the option, it’s the website itself that’s actively choosing to impose on you.

      Now, the counterpoint to this argument is that the feature in question will most likely further strengthen Google’s position as the market leader and lock out new independent browsers. This is certainly true and similar logic has indeed been employed in cases like the Microsoft antitrust case. With that being said, Google still has that extra layer of abstraction sitting between it and the actual mechanism of action (i.e.: independent website owners who want DRM). Think of it like the Uber of anti-trust law.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      It’s a shame that no matter the amount of outrage, no matter what the pitfalls of this change may be, it’s going to happen no matter what because money.

      • @what_is_a_name
        link
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Luckily we have choices. From WebKit browsers to Mozilla browsers. This will make me quit chrome. (Way overdue anyways)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you switch to a browser that cannot be remotely attested, eventually commercial websites will just stop serving you. So switch now and tell everyone you know to switch to something that is not Chrome or Safari.

          Safari already does this in the form of Personal Access Tokens, and the reason the web hasn’t taken it and ran with it yet is because their market share is ~20%. Chrome is 70%. This is about to be a systemic problem that you cannot fix by switching to software that respects your freedom.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          From what I read in the related links they only claim to have applied pressure, they didn’t cave because of that pressure though. Again it seemed to be about money.

          “The only saving grace was Vista’s very painful and long development period where Palladium was eventually killed so Vista could actually ship.”

    • MuchPineapples
      link
      English
      29
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Chromium, not chrome. Which means also Brave, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and a lot more. Basically only Firefox and Safari are left as the big non-chromium ones.

      But that’s not the worst of it. Even if you tear out this code, more and more websites will be built that rely on it. Which means Firefox etc also need to include it to keep functioning.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      78
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Pardon formatting, on mobile. Its a form of device authentication. Apple does this with safari already BTW, and it can reduce things like captcha because the authentication is done on the backend when a request hits a server. While still an issue in concept with Apple doing it, chromium browsers are a much larger market share. In layman’s terms this is basically the company saying, hey you are attempting to visit this site, we need to verify the device (or browser, or add on configuration, or no ad blocker, etc) is ‘authentic’. Which of course is nebulous. It can be whatever the entity in charge of attestation wants it to be.

      This sets the precedent that whomever is controlling verification, can deny whomever they see fit. I’m running GrapheneOS on my phone currently, they could deny for that. Or, if you are blocking ads. Maybe you’re not sharing specific information about your device, and they want to harvest that. Too bad, comply or you’re ‘not allowed to do x or y’.

      This is the gist. The web should be able to be accessed by anybody. It isn’t for companies to own nor should it be built that way. Web2 is a corporate hellscape.

      Edit wrt Safari: https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-attestation/

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        26
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I suspect “authentic” will mean “pays a license fee to Google.” In this respect it will work like other forms of DRM, and it will have the same effect of excluding new and smaller players from the market. Except in this case the market is the whole of the web.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          Yeah, definitely. Some form of extortion because ultimately that’s what will happen either way. I mean, that’s really the whole point of being the party that chooses what is authentic or not (and, what the definition of that word even means in this context). Monetary, data, whatever. Gotta keep the bottom line increasing for shareholders.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, definitely. Some form of extortion because ultimately that’s what it will be either way. I mean, that’s really the whole point of being the party that chooses what is authentic or not (and, what the definition of that word even means in this context). Monetary, data, whatever. Gotta keep the bottom line increasing for shareholders.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          No, there are no fees at all. Authentic just means approved device state, which will be defined by the website you go to I believe. So youtube might required many different things in order to be “authentic” like no ad blockers, genuine browser, non-rooted phone, etc., whereas bank-xyz may just check for one thing, like a genuine browser. Also, websites have to enable this on their side, so its not going to be used by default on all websites. The whole thing is crap though, even if only a few websites enable this, it could have huge impacts.

        • @Johem
          link
          31 year ago

          Not necessarily. With some forms od tracking being curbed, just being sent the who accesses which webpage on what device when (the bare minimum for attestation) has lots of value. And google won’t stop at the bare minimum of data grabbing, of course.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      From my limited understanding as a common pleb, they are inserting DRM into Chromium browsers to prevent ad-blockers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, it is a nightmare. The insane volume of ads and clickbait injected into web pages is killing the internet as an information source. Most of the searchable stuff is unusable. Which explains why ChatGPT was so enthusiastically embraced - it’s really just synthesizing content into a readable form that doesn’t require navigating around a jungle of animated gifs and flashing ads. That’s also I think why Lemmy and Mastodon are so refreshing to use, and hopefully will stay that way - although money seems to find a way to ruin everything. Lemmy right now feels a lot like the internet used to be before the big money came along and ruined it with advertising and platform lock-ins.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              https://andisearch.com looks like it might be a better option - thank you so much for posting. I’m mostly using duck-duck-go which is tolerable but by this point we should have come up with a more useful way to index relevant information. Google would rather we see ads than any relevant content, which wasn’t the case when they first launched google in the late 1990s. Google was refreshing at the time because of its cleaner interface than yahoo and uncluttered results, amusingly enough - it’s a far cry from what it once was.

              • Catweazle
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                @fuser, Andi certainly is a fresh wind, it was the first search engine with AI which appears, before Google, Bing and the others. Great work of two very nice and friendly devs, Angie Hoover and Jed White, with an open ear to the user in their Discord channel for suggestions, feature request, bug report (well, it’s still in developement) or simple chat.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  Well, thanks again for the info - I’m trying it now and the results seem excellent, it took me to wikiwand, which I’d never used but it’s a front end for wikipedia - it’s quite nice. I’ve learned so much about alternative FOSS and great ad-free content by reading and posting here. I was never a great fan of reddit - liked to scroll but hardly ever posted there - I thought RPAN was the coolest thing they did - but Lemmy is great for conversation, despite the relatively small user base - I’m grateful that reddit’s nonsense drove so many helpful people here.

          • Danny S
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            @fuser @Lem0n Regarding articles, I just save them to a read-later app that strips them of all the crap. If the site won’t let me, I’ll find another source reporting the same information, and save it to read later. If this process ultimately fails without a saved page, I won’t read the article.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              Right - that’s a good approach, however if you’re looking for a quick answer to an immediate question by searching using a common search engine, the garbage SEO pages are the most irritating, even with adblocking.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        To be fair, it is useful for other purposes, but the cost to users is likely to be huge, with ad blocking being one of them. It probably also prevents other things even outside your browser because there’s no point in securing a browser running in an untrusted environment. IIRC there is/was an issue running Netflix on certain Android devices and rooted devices after a similar feature was added to Android.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          This would also hurt users that need accessibility extensions so they can properly browse websites that don’t have good accessibility features.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          My S7 was running a custom rom, I had to manually download and install the Netflix apk, as the play store wouldn’t let me do it. WhatsApp was weird too, it would let you install, but there were a bunch of aggravating bugs, like if your device was on it showed you as “online”. Got in trouble at work because my boss thought I was on my phone all day.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      EME for the rest of the internet, not just video. Basically doing what hulu does to stop screen recording/as blocking but across every webpage