zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
They're going to prevent me from running an adblocker in this "web integrity" environment, aren't they.

>>LispSp+n9
That makes zero sense. If they ever did that they would lose all their market share overnight, and they know that. Google has always been good about letting people have full control over their devices, despite building incredibly locked down UX.

It would be trivial for them to build a Chromebook, or Android phone, or browser that you can't flip into dev mode, but they've never done that, even though many of their competitors in the space regularly lock users out of their devices.

>>px43+at
That is what would happen if they made adblocking impossible in chrome today, minus all the people who don't use AdBlock and happen to be numerous enough to be Google's entire business.

In a world with attestation, you can't browse any website unless you are using Chrome or another attested browser. The New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents. That is what would make everyone use Chrome.

>>whatsh+Ry
The scariest part is that it's not just the browser --- remote attestation goes right down to the hardware with things like the TPM, so if even one piece of your software is not "approved", you'll be locked out.