zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
> Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants.

This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.

When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates and none of us can do anything about it, they perhaps have too much market power.

>>mabbo+Wd
> When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates

I don't think this is remotely the case. Quite a few tech-savvy people I know (some of them software developers) use Chrome and mostly don't care about whatever Google does with it. I mention "manifest v3" and get a blank stare. I talk about advertising and ad blockers, and most people don't care, with some of them not even using ad blockers.

We really live in a bubble, here on HN. Most people think of privacy as some abstract thing that they have little control over, and are mostly fine with that. And some are even also fine with government erosion of privacy, in the name of "save the children" style arguments, and of corporate erosion of privacy, in the name of getting free stuff in exchange for their personal information.

It's a sad state of affairs. If most people really did care strongly about these sorts of issues, then I think it would be baffling why we haven't seen more change here -- after all, Firefox is a perfectly viable alternative to Chrome that very few people use. But the lack of change is no surprise: most people don't care.

>>kelnos+Ji
Yeah, because you called it manifest V3, not gimping adblockers, which is what it actually was. How many of Google's users love that they're gimping adblockers?

Same for Web Environment Integrity API. Nobody knows what those jargon terms means. That's part of how enshittification works. If everyone knew how badly they were being fucked, this would never work.

>>jchw+0J1
I actually don't understand it well. What does it mean? I can't browse the web from xubuntu any more? I believe it's scary, but can't seem to actually sell myself on that.

If it's so bad, why can't we bring a monopoly lawsuit against them over chrome/chromium? This is pretty similar to what Microsoft did, isn't it?

>>boppo1+JR1
The problem with remote attestation is that there's no bound to exactly how bad it could become. If you can get enough of the internet on browsers that support remote attestation, to the point where it's an acceptable loss to simply reject anyone who does not have a browser that does support remote attestation, you can theoretically assert full control over the end user.

What will actually happen? Nobody knows for sure. The most likely outcome is that you will not be able to do banking, watch Twitch streams, etc. on anything other than Chrome, Firefox and Edge, on Windows and macOS. Linux will probably be relegated to the legacy web that does not enforce remote attestation. Alternate browsers like Librewolf, Brave and Mullvad Browser will just disappear as if they never existed. You can not browse Tor on clearnet websites anymore, as if you really could anyways. Etc, etc.

> If it's so bad, why can't we bring a monopoly lawsuit against them over chrome/chromium? This is pretty similar to what Microsoft did, isn't it?

Microsoft of today is doing things blatantly in the open, that Microsoft of 199x would never dream of doing. The difference now is that all of the major computer manufacturers are basically going the same way, just at different rates.

The legal system is not coming to rescue us.