zlacker

>>reacto+(OP)
This is a level or two below where my knowledge of the browser trails off, so I'll ask generally: how would this interact with things like the WebKit Content Blocker API?

>>eroppl+hb
Step 1: Sites require a "secure" (read proprietary) browser like "Google Chrome", "Microsoft Edge", "Safari" or refuse to operate.

Step 2: "Secure" browsers change the behavior of their implementation of the Content Blocker API so an industry-accepted "secure" site lile Google Ads can opt-out of being blocked ("You wouldn't want a misconfigured content blocker to accidentally break a verified secure site right?")

Step 3: ??? (Force the users into a take it or leave it choice for whether they want to be part of the internet or not)

Step 4: Profit

>>jabban+He
I don't understand how the Apple that introduced their Content Blocker APIs would choose to invest into this API to kneecap their own content blockers?

>>madeof+hj
They wouldn't have to. Unless you use an iDevice you're not using an Apple made browser. (The content blocker API is WebKit so it's used across multiple browsers)

As for revenue from Apple users, they already want to have control over that and would be more than happy if Google and co voluntarily stopped serving their users so they can make ad money off of them on their own terms.