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
This is a massive leap in assumptions and arguments.

For one, blocking users in a geographic region would not be legally considered racial discrimination unless you can prove intent. This is the bullshit loop hole that makes it easy to get away with discrimination, but that's the way it works.

If Google really wants to play this game and create a technical gate preventing usage of sites by anyone that uses a browser that may be blocking ads, there's a legitimate business need there and all they have to say is they are no longer willing to serve users that refuse to pay by viewing ads and providing valuable data. In the case of Chrome they can extend this and say they are helping make sure anyone hosting content online can also protect their revenue as well.

Is that a shitty practice and will it cripple the internet as it was originally designed? Absolutely. But likening this to systemic racism is an insane argument and really doesn't help get at the underlying problem that we would all rather have an internet that is open, free, and not designed entirely as a corporate ad playground.