zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. leesal+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:34:14
But why do they care so much about this? Is it only for DRM on media playback?
replies(6): >>Aaargh+u >>yetihe+z >>jiggaw+K >>goalie+o1 >>kalleb+D2 >>rpdill+T3
2. Aaargh+u[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:36:10
>>leesal+(OP)
No, this is for DRM on web pages. End game is probably to force ads down your throat.
3. yetihe+z[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:36:18
>>leesal+(OP)
It's so that you don't modify their precious page content (ads and trackers) with "unwanted" software hacks.
4. jiggaw+K[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:37:03
>>leesal+(OP)
They can finally, finally get rid of those pesky ad blockers.

Google is an ad company. They're not a browser company.

replies(1): >>xp84+Il2
5. goalie+o1[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:39:53
>>leesal+(OP)
It’s far worse. If you go back to to the html and http protocols, they are extremely open and friendly. I would say extremely elegant and helped build the web we know today. But google has been iterating away from open and accessible standards in favour of controlling experiences (see amp, WEI, etc). I’m all in favour of secure boot chains with options for unlocking because of the security benefits. There’s absolutely no good user reason to apply this to web resources though.
replies(1): >>Ashame+1k
6. kalleb+D2[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:46:27
>>leesal+(OP)
The stated reason is to stop bots from being counted as ad views and make sure that all ad views are done by actual humans. This is likely even honest reasoning from the people developing it.

The same technology could easily be applied to simply blocking anyone who isn't verified (in the name of stopping spam, DDoS, bank security, you name it), meaning anyone not using an approved install of Windows/macOS/Android/iOS is shut out from the internet.

In the long term, in the name of "banking security", they're likely to add a mode that also lets you ensure your pages aren't tampered with by extensions, and there go all the ad blockers.

replies(2): >>thesup+L7 >>xp84+U22
7. rpdill+T3[view] [source] 2023-07-26 12:51:40
>>leesal+(OP)
I think there are a lot of parallels with what Reddit did.

Reddit wanted to control how users consumed content on their site. To control the experience (i.e. monetize with ads), they had to shut down third-party clients, since those could remove ads.

Google appears to be doing the same thing, but for the entire web. WEI is a way for sites that want to monetize with Google ads to prevent folks from accessing their site unless they can cryptographically assure that the user's browser will follow all the rules Google sets. We don't yet know exactly what all those rules will be, but it isn't hard to guess that they'll be along the lines of whatever makes Google the most money.

This applies to desktop browsers, but also affects automated tools like wget and curl. It could kill web scraping altogether.

replies(1): >>kmeist+zk
◧◩
8. thesup+L7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 13:10:17
>>kalleb+D2
>> The same technology could easily be applied to simply blocking anyone who isn't verified

Sounds like a great way to enforce censorship:

- websites can deny access to unverified web browsers / web clients

- WEI-enforcing web browsers / web clients can refuse to go to unverified websites (not a stated goal, but it is a logical next step to boost website adoption of WEI APIs once a critical mass of clients is reached)

Google wants to build a wall around the Web and have their own walled garden:

https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM?t=57

◧◩
9. Ashame+1k[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 13:59:09
>>goalie+o1
I know it's not exactly what you mean, but this is why I dislike HTTP2 and 3 (both also heavily pushed by Google but also others). While open, they are the opposite of "welcoming and friendly".
◧◩
10. kmeist+zk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 14:01:20
>>rpdill+T3
Third-party clients could have been made to display ads, or they could have gated third-party client access behind Reddit Gold. That wasn't the problem.

The problem was that if you used a third-party client, Reddit would have to coordinate with them to launch whatever new stupid cryptocurrency scam they wanted to push that week. On a web browser they can just push new code into it[0], and their first-party mobile clients can be updated ahead-of-time with support for the feature. But third-party clients would have to spend their own development time adding stupid "click here to get your Snoovatar[1]" links. They could slow-walk that, or just not implement that, and Reddit would have to spend time and money kicking users off that third-party app.

This, incidentally, is why every other major social media platform bans third-party clients. Third-party clients are user agents, not platform agents.

[0] Which, incidentally, makes web browsers not user agents

[1] An NFT scam Reddit tried to pull

◧◩
11. xp84+U22[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 20:26:21
>>kalleb+D2
Oh, so it’s like the HDMI DRM that attempts to let displays certify “I’m a real honest-to-goodness TV, not a capture card.”

That one is in the category of things that is little more than a nuisance in practice since it’s so easy to circumvent, but that’s a hardware thing and therefore it’s easier to plug something in that is unauthorized. Things are getting so tightened up on the software side with secure boot, Apple’s read-only system partition and by-default App Store Only policy on the Mac, etc. that I suspect this type of thing will be a pain for normal people, though actual at-scale bad actors will probably figure it out.

◧◩
12. xp84+Il2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 21:50:45
>>jiggaw+K
Indeed. Nor a search company, nor a phone operating system company, nor a maps company, nor an email provider, nor a business software company.

Whatever someone may think of Google or even of ads, it’s smart to keep that important thing in mind and remember their alignment is and must always be toward maximizing and improving advertising.

[go to top]