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 New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents.

You forgot one thing – once a copy of the content is server to AT LEAST one attested user agent – what prevents him from sharing his copy with unattested users?

It is easy to see that if something will make getting the content harder – it will immediately find the path of least resistance. This is the reason any new Netflix title is available for free an hour after the premiere. And the harder Netflix will try to fight this - less time will pass before their content is stolen and re-translated for free. Exactly same will happen to New York Times if they refuse to serve - someone would serve a copy instead of them – because there is now demand created for such copy.