zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
It's great to see this getting more attention. User-agent discrimination (i.e. "go away if you're not using the latest version of Chrome") needs to become illegal. As long as I'm not overloading your service or similar, what hardware or software I use must not be restricted. The same goes for other deliberate obstacles to accessibility and interoperability --- creating a "standard" that's so complex and churned frequently enough that only Google can implement it and keep up with changes, and then spreading propaganda to encourage all sites to essentially become Chrome-only regardless of their actual utility, is something that needs to be stopped.

I recommend finding everyone responsible for this and exercising your right to free speech on them. It works for politicians, and it should work on this other flavour of bastard too.

Once again, Stallman was very prescient: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

>>userbi+mv
Why shouldn't the owner/operator of a website be able to decide who to sling bits to?

How is this, conceptually, any different from sites that used to block IE out of spite?

>>TylerE+zA
How is this, conceptually, any different from sites that used to block IE out of spite?

I don't agree with doing that either, but whereas things like changing UA headers/page-rewriting proxies would easily get around that sort of discrimination, this is now cryptographically secure.

Governments are scared of encryption because it could be used against them. The population should've realised the same could also apply to them, because it is now actually happening.