zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
Mozilla should call for Google's removal from the W3C over this implementation of Web Environment Integrity. "But Chrome has 65% market share, what good is the W3C without them?” If Google can take unilateral action to fundamentally change the basic principles of the web, then the W3C is already useless. This will give Google a clear choice: if they want to maintain the idea that the W3C matters, they should withdraw this implementation.

It is unbelievable that over the course of 3 days, the potential future of the web has been put in such dire straits. There's already an existing, far less troubling (while still bad), proposal in the form of Private Access Tokens going through a standards committee that Google chose to ignore. They presented this proposal in the shadiest way possible through a personal GitHub account. They immediately shut down outside contribution and comments. And despite the blowback they are already shoving a full implementation into Chromium.

What we need is real action, and this is the role Mozilla has always presented itself as serving. A "true" disinterested defender of the ideals of the web. Now is the time to prove it. Simply opposing this proposal isn't enough. This is about as clear and basic an attack on what fundamentally differentiates the web from every walled garden as possible. If someone drafted a proposal to the W3C that stated that only existing browsers should be allowed to render web pages, the correct response would not be to "take the stance that you oppose that proposal," it would be to seriously question whether the submitting party should even participate in the group. Make no mistake, that is what is happening now.

>>tolmas+We
It didn't happen when Apple did it with Safari (and you all were quiet as a mouse as well, with HN actively defending Apple Safari monopoly with this feature enabled)... so why would NOW be any different?

>>izacus+vx
Apple don't have enough web properties to force this sort of change.

Google can turn around tomorrow and say that no browser without WEI can access GMail, GMaps, GSheets, Photos etc; people will have to comply, effectively killing any browser that does not support the feature.

This is the problem with the Chromium monoculture. "We", as generic IT people and developers on HN, definitely have a responsibility for not deprecating this monoculture earlier. If you use Brave, you're guilty; if you use Ungoogled Chromium, you're guilty; if you use Safari, you're guilty. It's high time people start taking responsibility.

>>toyg+bq1
Google can also decide at any time to put those web properties behind forced logins, or paywalls or just shutter them altogether. If Google doesn't want them to be part of the open web they won't be, regardless of whether this particular set of things is implemented or not. If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem.

>>db579+jQ1
> If Google doesn't want [Gmail etc] to be part of the open web they won't be

The point is not that Google cares about those sites - they don't. Those services are leverage that they use to control web standards, in order to enable their real cash-cow: AdSense. They will use their web properties to shove down our throats anything that makes AdSense more profitable, from the anti-adblock measures in Chrome to this one.

> If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem

I don't disagree - and I use Firefox, keep my important mail outside of Gmail, etc etc. But I recognize that many, many people don't, so the technologically literal out there have an ethical responsibility to push back against corruption of the open web.