zlacker

>>danShu+(OP)
Expected, but meaningless if we can't drive people towards Firefox and away from Chromium products. That's something of a responsibility we all have, especially those of us invested in the safety and security (collectively, trust) of the web.

I haven't seen anything yet on whether Brave will support it, though if I'm understanding correctly, they won't have a choice since they're using Chromium. Hopefully I'm misinformed.

>>eganis+s8
As far as I know, disabling it in chromium can be as simple as commenting out the last line that returns the verdict. It'll need more work if you don't want to send data to random "trusted" parties, but brave is already doing that stuff anyway.

I don't see why it would be that difficult. The issue here is with websites that want to mandate it.

>>huggin+fg
Just so you know, barely anyone in the real world uses Chromium, and compiling Chromium takes hours (I have done that many times). So that's not an argument. Also, if this is ever becomes a standard or a de-facto standard, it probably will be implemented as a proprietary feature, in the same way as Widevine or more closely SafetyNet -- if anyone can easily get around this, there is no point of doing it.