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
> 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.

I really hate this attempt by Google and hope they don't follow through, but why should this be illegal?

Software users agent strings are just an identifier added on by a browser to give the server context, it's not a protected class. Google has every right to gate use of their software however they choose, we can just stop using it.

We don't have a fundamental right to an open internet, no one owes us this. I hope we can get back to the days when the internet was much more open and less commercialized, but that day won't come by legal regulation.