zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
This sounds like the final death blow to the web as a useful platform for anyone who isn't a corporation.

>>JohnFe+16
This is bad but how is it going to affect the usefulness of my personal web site, that will never use that API to check who's reading it, not or human? Same thing for a lot of sites, probably the vast majority of them.

>>pmontr+x8
One day Google may well flag your sure as lower security, refuse to let you show ads, or disappear you from search results.

>>afandi+7a
You already get flagged as hazardous and uncool for not using https, even on a perfectly-static site.

Some of us called that out as a slippery slope leading to ubiquitous gatekeeping, but we were shouted down in the name of (as usual) "security."

>>Camper+1c
That is because without https, there is no guarantee that the site requested is bring delivered as the site intends. For example, an ISP could insert data or scripts into the page.

>>garden+Ch
Let's rephrase that...

"That is because without Web Integrity, there is no guarantee that the site requested is being delivered as the site intends. For example, a browser extension could remove ads or modify content on the page."

See where this slippery slope is heading? We DO NOT want what "the site intends". We want to be in control of the content we consume.

>>userbi+qI
Well, as you note, user control is exactly the difference; a user can still modify a page with HTTPS, but not with this proposal.