zlacker

>>pimter+(OP)
Yesterday, the sentiment on Google's early proposal was "company breakups start to make a lot of sense", "Go f yourself, Google", "It's maddening and saddening", "[the people involved] reputations are fully gone from this".

Today it turns out Apple not only proposed but implemented and shipped the actual feature last year. "It could be an interesting opportunity to reboot a few long-lost dreams". "I kind of get both sides here". "I guess I personally come down to leaving this turned on in Safari for now, and seeing what happens". Granted, the overall sentiment is still negative but the difference in tone is stark. The reality distortion field is alive and well, folks.

>>modele+nD
The difference can probably be explained by nobody having any idea that Apple already implemented a version of this.

And on top of that, Google's reputation of brutal power grabs on the web may make a difference in tone.

Importantly though, we shouldn't frame this as Apple vs Google. I can ensure you that both companies absolutely hate the open web and open computing in general.

>>dahwol+VK1
If Apple says it is to prevent the user from seeing a CAPTCHA, trust them at their word, with all the implications it entails.

If Google says it is to prove to advertisers that a human is seeing their ads, trust them at their word, with all the implication it entails.

>>philis+ga2
Neither seems trustworthy. Google because, I mean, Google, they’ve repeatedly demonstrated that they can’t be trusted, whether regarding privacy or LTS, and Apple because it’s just “trust the device”, which can obviously be gamed by developer accounts or other hacks like simply walking past a rack of devices confirming touch or face recognition.

There’s no stopping fraudulent behaviour, only defensive barriers to dissuade the non-nation-state actors.