zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
As someone who is a somewhat new to web technologies, can someone really explain why this is bad? I saw the techical discussions in the PRs made to the WEI repo but it was all super technical that I was not able to understand the arguments made for and against it.

>>anshum+Qc
To put it simple, it makes it possible for service provider to reject providing service to clients not running corporate-owned white-listed clients. Thus making it virtually impossible to create independent clients for such services.

It will be swiftly adopted by well meaning but clueless bank and government clerks who will accidentally use to lock all open hardware, open operating system, open browser users out and mandate you need to purchase at least one locked down corporate device to exist.

It's the trusted computing story all along. Eventually you will need permission to run your code on your own device and such "unlocked" device will be blocked from accessing any digital infrastructure because it might be otherwise used to breach ToS.

>>mordae+8J
Isn't this already the reality in the mobile space?

I own a rooted Samsung device and have to jump through 100 hoops to be able to use my banking app or Netflix or some rando game (which I don't actually play). SafetyNet broken, hardware fuse blown, Magisk Hide + some other havks just to still be able to do online banking.

I just want to be able to ssh into my own device or install a real ad blocker, like Adaway without losing access to real world applications.

This is all very depressing.

>>sir_br+hX
it is the reality for mobile.

on iphone you can't even install software that apple doesn't explicitly allow.

they would love to extend this to all computing devices to remove control