zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. bruce5+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-22 04:18:37
I see Facebook locking you out (no great loss there) but I'm less convinced about Amazon or Netflix. They're not advertising-based businesses, so are not suffering with bots-consuming-ads problem.

Put another way, my site is unappealing to bots, and frankly I don't care about bot traffic, because I don't have ads. So I don't feel the need to support this server-side.

Equally Amazon makes money selling goods, not ads. They don't need to know if its human or bot, they just need a credit card. [1] Netflix is subscription based, again doesn't care if its a "trusted device" or not. They want you make sure their content is available not blocked because my TV is "untrusted".

Sure, you'll end up using Chrome to use Google properties. But I don't really see the incentive for the non-ad-based Web to bother implementing this.

[1] it won't move the needle for fraud, fraud is easily done via trusted devices.

replies(2): >>Mindwi+4f >>fauige+pt
2. Mindwi+4f[view] [source] 2023-07-22 07:22:38
>>bruce5+(OP)
Netflix hides it's app from the Google Play store if the device fails the system integrity check that this proposal is based on, they definitely care.
3. fauige+pt[view] [source] 2023-07-22 10:23:57
>>bruce5+(OP)
>Equally Amazon makes money selling goods, not ads.

Amazon is one of the biggest ad networks on earth. They made $40bn from advertising last year using all the personal data they get from their paying customers.

>Netflix is subscription based, again doesn't care if its a "trusted device" or not.

Oh but they do care very much. Netflix requires DRM in desktop browsers and its own app on mobile platforms. And they launched and ad based plan recently.

It's a mistake to believe that advertising is the main problem and direct payments are the solution. Making a payment takes away more privacy than advertising alone ever could and hands personal data to payment schemes and banks on top of everything.

[go to top]