zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. dmanti+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-21 18:42:09
The literal attempt to censor web usage of Linux and BSD desktops, other FOSS clients, custom Android ROMs, etc with an open reasoning "to sell you ads".

They don't even try to masquerade it.

replies(4): >>jabban+h5 >>intelV+Lb >>joshua+Yc >>keepam+Oe1
2. jabban+h5[view] [source] 2023-07-21 19:06:55
>>dmanti+(OP)
Yeah I mean the first of their examples is literally:

> Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

I find it quite cute that they start with "users" as if it's a user demand but in the next sentence switch to "advertisers" --- the real target population.

replies(3): >>Terret+cl >>Button+Mv >>wruza+Pq1
3. intelV+Lb[view] [source] 2023-07-21 19:34:37
>>dmanti+(OP)
I mean, to be fair, that's their entire modus operandi.

You don't berate a kitchen for serving food, why would you look at any Google contraption from HTTP/3 to Chrome as anything but a vehicle for selling ads and/or mining data?

replies(2): >>callal+J51 >>jabban+1h1
4. joshua+Yc[view] [source] 2023-07-21 19:39:31
>>dmanti+(OP)
The largest subsection of the document is spent discussing how to prevent specifically this situation, and this is called out explicitly as a non-goal.
replies(1): >>YoshiR+rT1
◧◩
5. Terret+cl[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-21 20:16:18
>>jabban+h5
Why stop there. Let's see who is behind the problem they're solving with item 2:

Some examples of scenarios where users depend on client trust include:

1. Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

2. Users want to know they are interacting with real people on social websites but bad actors often want to promote posts with fake engagement (for example, to promote products, or make a news story seem more important). Websites can only show users what content is popular with real people if websites are able to know the difference between a trusted and untrusted environment.

Not written in item two: And the people paying to promote the posts funding these sites want to know the promotions are landing on real consumers' screens.

◧◩
6. Button+Mv[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-21 21:05:28
>>jabban+h5
> This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

Is... is the Verification Can actually going to happen? https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/983/286/ea5...

replies(1): >>LSlowm+m85
◧◩
7. callal+J51[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-22 00:36:44
>>intelV+Lb
Google are clearly trying to add levels of indirection here to pretend it’s some kind of standards forming, instead of a dictatorship. There’s nothing “to be fair” about.
8. keepam+Oe1[view] [source] 2023-07-22 02:16:08
>>dmanti+(OP)
I'm worried about this too, as we run a company that invests heavily in developing browsing technology that is powered by these browsers (like chromium) but liberates them in various ways (such as running headless in the cloud, and then having users connect to it remotely), or running in a "semi automated". Both of these things would possibly be flagged by these attestation guards, and would not be environments that "preserve the integrity of the ad business model and the dominant browser market". If you want to get involved in doing something about it, come and check out our open source browser work at: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro and get involved
◧◩
9. jabban+1h1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-22 02:39:27
>>intelV+Lb
Right, but a kitchen can't push out a proposal to make your mouth incompatible with non-approved food. ;-)
◧◩
10. wruza+Pq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-22 04:28:27
>>jabban+h5
It’s not impossible that google people who work there long enough are under a corporate delusion that users need something ads related that is aligned with business model of their paycheck issuer. They may sincerely believe it’s the only way forward, because otherwise it’s ruined for everyone.

As someone who lived in a city fully controlled by organized crime, I can tell you that eventually some people become fanboys of gang-law and start to unironically teach everyone how it’s better and more moral than actual law.

◧◩
11. YoshiR+rT1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-22 10:26:57
>>joshua+Yc
They didn't try hard enough. That section concludes "Established browsers would need to only use attesters that respond quickly and fairly to new browsers' requests to be trusted," so in the end, Chrome's monopoly lets it call all the shots.
◧◩◪
12. LSlowm+m85[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-23 17:24:48
>>Button+Mv
Just need to change 2019 to 2024 apparently.
[go to top]