zlacker

>>reacto+(OP)
This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempts to use this stuff to do copy protection) and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browser as possible.

The result: there is now effectively one dominating web browser run by an ad company who nigh unto controls the spec for the web itself and who is finally putting its foot down to decide that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices or to prove that we are using some locked-down component of our otherwise unlocked device to see anyone's content, and they get to frame it as fighting for the user in the spec draft as users have a "need" to prove their authenticity to websites to get their free stuff.

(BTW, Brave is in the same boat: they are also an ad company--despite building ad blocking stuff themselves--and their product managers routinely discuss and even quote Brendan Eich talking about this same kind of "run the browser inside of trusted computing" as their long-term solution for preventing people blocking their ads. The vicious irony: the very tech they want to use to protect them is what will be used to protect the status quo from them! The entire premise of monetizing with ads is eventually either self-defeating or the problem itself.)

>>saurik+L5
> who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices

The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1].

I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do we protest this? Google will just strong-arm their implementation through Chromium and, when banks, Netflix & co. start using it, they've effectively cornered other engines into implementing it.

This isn't new to them. They did it with FLoC, which most people were opposed to[2]. The most they did was FLoC was deprecate it and re-release it under a different name.

The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.

[0]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser [1]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2]: >>26344013

>>tentac+H9
> how do we protest this?

You do not and you cannot. It was written in stone once Chrome dominated the browser market. What Chrome (Google) wants, Chrome (Google) gets. Despite all the good engineering Google wants to sell ads, that's all there is to it. And the result is this proposal.

> The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.

It's irrelevant and we are an irrelevant minority. Unless people switch to FF in droves the web is Chrome. And they won't because at the end of the day people just want to get home from their shitty jobs and stream a show. As long as that works everything else is a non-issue.

>>spysta+Bb
We could at least get everyone here to use Firefox. There's really no excuse for a technically minded person to still be using Chrome for their day to day browsing.

If you do eventually run into a poorly crafted webpage that doesn't work on Firefox you have the wherewithal to decide if you are simply not going to use that site or hop over to chrome just this once.

But the important thing is checking in automatically as a Firefox user in the logs of every other site online. Push Firefox marketshare up and at least some places will be hesitant to write off Firefox as irrelevant.

>>Fatnin+3o1
> We could at least get everyone here to use Firefox.

That would accomplish nothing.

> But the important thing is checking in automatically as a Firefox user in the logs of every other site online.

No, that's not important. HN users are a tiny minority compared to the billions of people that use the web daily.

I'm sorry, there's no easy way to say this: Firefox is never coming back. The web of old is never coming back. It's over. Even if this particular proposal gets defeated somehow, a future similar proposal will make it through. There is nothing you or I can do about it. Google is more powerful than most governments, and they are vastly more powerful than any random group of like-minded people who get together on the Internet in the belief that they can accomplish something.

>>p-e-w+sJ1
A defeatist attitude like this certainly predicts the future... If you're playing by the rules. And the rules were set by Google, so it's in your best interest to break them by actively harming Google. Restrictions in choice happen because people don't oppose the narrowing enough to make the corporations lose money. This might be one of the few times where targeted malware could be beneficial if it destroys Google's services and makes them too much of a risk to use. If somebody puts a latent trigger into a Javascript library that's widely used like Node.js that makes Chromium and only Chromium break then that would start a cascade effect of Chromium locking itself up more and more until it's impossible to use. You could even make cookie bombs, where you have two cookies, and when one expires before the other it triggers the surviving poisoned cookie to ruin Chrome's functionality by poisoning the browser agent. Google wouldn't be able to trust anything they didn't make themselves. You can force Google to barricade themselves in until it's impossible to reach them, and have them do it so fast that updating systems for developers and users would be too much of a pain to constantly keep up with. The downside is once you use a tactic like this then it's not just Google that wouldn't trust anything they didn't make themselves.