zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
There are many arguments against this but not many brought the implications for search engines.

If websites implement this, it will effectively make building a web search engine impossible for new entrants. The current players can whitelist/attest their own clients while categorizing every other scraping clients as bots.

If not for other reasons, I can't see how Google a search company can be allowed to push something that can kill competition using its market dominance in other areas like browsers.

>>devsda+Iu
Is it possible for them to implement this API in such a way that it will fail 5% of the time or so, making it impossible for websites to deny individuals based on failing attestation?

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

>>dontre+tD
... until Google decides to dial that down to zero for "experience", or Hulu / Netflix makes you disable/whitelist/whatever to access their site.

>>FireBe+lF
But as mentioned above, isn't doing so against Google's own self interest? It seems like the project is explicitly stating their goal isn't to allow for websites to do this, and they are implementing it in a manner consistent with that.

One thing about your comment above: Hulu can't start implementing attestation until Google turns the knob to 0 because they can't start randomly dropping 5% of Chrome users. So in your comment above it should be "and" not "or". If I understand correctly Hulu cannot act unilaterally with the currently planned implementation of this.

If let's say they did turn the knob for Chrome, wouldn't it take a while for websites to start implementing this? For me not knowing as much about this it feels like this is a step in an ambiguous direction which could be good or bad still. But since it's Google everyone is thinking ahead in the causal chain. Can you help me understand why this is such a big and clearly bad step against the open web? Thank you!