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
> As long as I'm not overloading your service or similar, what hardware or software I use must not be restricted.

A lot of the push is not for bad actors literally DDOSing servers, but bad users degrading the service for other users. If most users of a service agrees to, for example, run an attestable environment to access a service, then that service should be able to refuse access to users who don’t buy into it.

>>judge2+YE1
> If most users of a service agrees to, for example, run an attestable environment to access a service

With Chrome's near monopoly in browsers, most users will run an attestable environment when chrome ships it without ever knowing and agreeing to doing so.

Even if Google manages to "collect" consent, this has so much potential to adversely impact everyone(including businesses) except Google in the long term that it should not be allowed.