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
For the same reasons a shop owner must sell to all customers without discriminating on ethnicity, religion, disability, etc?

Would it be acceptable for a website owner to block users from Detroit (78% African Americans)[1] or block users from El Paso (82% Hispanic)[2] because the website owner claims that fraudulent ad clicking is more prevalent from those cities?

Would it be acceptable to only serve web pages to people without disabilities and without a need for specialist accessibility software because it's not economically viable to consider users with disabilities?

Would the poorest 10% of the population be able to access web pages and services delivered over the Internet with old hardware (all they can afford) and with limited computer literacy and limited ability to raise complaints (that are ignored anyway or responded to by an AI algorithm that doesn't care)?

A website owner is still discriminating when they hide behind technology such as AI algorithms, Web Integrity APIs, etc and pretend that their use of such technology is non-discriminatory.

[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymich...

[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/elpasocitytexas...

>>dhx+ET
I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches?

I’m not defending google’s crap but I should be able to block anyone I want from my websites if I choose.

>>archer+g21
> does this make me a bad person for discriminating

Yes. And not only for discriminating. You make the web shittier than it already is, and more fragmented.

> or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches?

This part is unrelated to the first part.

>>allarm+wf1
Yes, I am the bad guy for defending my sites from being defaced and my clients private data stolen from the bad actors coming from those two countries specifically. It is totally me making the internet a shittier place. If only I had the strength and energy to unblock those countries to tolerate the unrelenting abuse and attacks so I won't be such a terrible, horrible person.