zlacker

That sounds entirely unhelpful. They can just close the issue tracker + people will obviously just move on. This sounds like the Reddit 'blackout' that did nothing and is already forgotten.

What we really need is for the collective browser vendors to refuse to implement this and, if Chrome pushes forward, to bring Google to court over it. Nothing short of legal intervention is going to help here.

>>insani+(OP)
Similar feature is already in production Safari, alas: https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att...

>>insani+(OP)
What sort of regulation do we imagine a government putting into place to stop this? If anything, governments tend to lean in favor of identification and verification systems because they make corporate commerce run more smoothly.

>>insani+(OP)
Or we could show Chrome users what the future will look like for alternative browsers - by blocking Chrome now.

>>shadow+b2
It's not hard to imagine legislation around a user right to ownership of their device. For example, it could be made illegal for a website to attest that a user is not running specific software.

Legislation around device ownership rights are already present, especially in the EU.

>>accoun+e2
OK? That has nothing to do with what the parent said, which is that the issue tracker should be flooded.

>>zoul+p
That's not really surprising. Limited attestation of device state has been a thing for a long time and it's why Chrome is used at so many companies.