zlacker

>>danShu+(OP)
Viewing the web as a platform for delivering applications, Web Integrity is an obviously good thing that I personally would use as a developer who makes software people pay for.

The opposition listed here is mostly misguided. For example, there is ~0% chance Google breaks "screen readers" or "assistive technologies" with Web Integrity. Saying that they would break seems like a bad faith argument to me.

Fundamentally this is about DRM and whether or not you think it should be allowed. I believe optional DRM for web applications would be good for developers and users of the apps. It would be bad for most other entities (crawlers, scrapers, criminals, etc). So I am in favor of it.

>>mgracz+E22
If people are paying for the software, then they should be able to use the software as they wish.

If you were selling a towel, you wouldn't put restrictions on someone wetting it and using it for hand to hand combat, would you?

>>potami+SN2
If it were possible to manufacture towels that couldn't easily be stolen from hotels, then yes I would want that to be allowed. Hotels would like it, and guests who do not steal would benefit from lower prices.

And more directly yes I would want exactly what you're describing to be possible. We do this with alcohol so that rubbing alcohol can be sold at a reasonable price.

>>mgracz+oO2
It's possible. You just need to start manufacturing CCTVs, and encourage hotels to install them in their bathrooms to lower costs!