• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    771 year ago

    If you don’t like how Google is able to do this, know it’s because of it’s market share, and you should just use Firefox.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      You should use Firefox (or a fork of it), but can we expect them to be an option if Google’s actions make it so most sites only work on Chrome?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        361 year ago

        Google can’t make websites update.

        Websites will only update to Chrome specific things if Chrome is the dominant browser.

        How do you stop Chrome being the dominant browser? By not using it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not going to be that simple. CDNs like Cloudflare are already on board with this, and Safari built a similar feature last year (and virtually no one noticed or cared). This horse has already left the barn and I’m not sure there’s anything we can do at this point.

          EDIT - Oh and I didn’t think of this but Google absolutely CAN make websites update. “We’ll improve your SEO ranking if you support this new feature”. They’ve done this before and they’ll do it again.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Google can make websites that use its advertising platform support attestation. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s their plan.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        They can make sites to not work on Chrome, not the other way around. Unless you implemented some chrome only features in your site then that’s on you.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I expect businesses to impliment Chrome-only features in their sites…

          I recall Edge became Chrome based due in part to Google making needless changes on their own sites (e.g. Youtube) whjch broke functionity in Edge.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Except you’ll have to keep a copy of Chrome handy because this is less about what software you’re using and more about which apps are attested and approved for that website.

      Once your bank says “we’re requiring this” it’s kinda over isn’t it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        221 year ago

        Your bank will only do it, if, and only if, Chrome is a majority of browsers they see.

        How do you stop that? By not using it.

        Everyone keeps postulating over a terrible future, but won’t actually do anything now, today, to help prevent it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          But Chrome is already the dominant browser, and Firefox has like 2% market share last time I checked.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          The bank already has your money. Asking you to install a free app to use their services would not be seen by regulators as unreasonable. Especially when they play the security argument.

          I don’t see how Chrome has to be in the majority for some sectors to start relying on these kinds of attestations. Safari already has a similar mechanism, so that right there is the majority of mobile users when you include Chrome.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I fear voting with one’s wallet is not enough to prevent any business from doing something in their best interests at the expense of the consumer/user. When it comes to banks we’d have to place our hope the governments… which relies of them actually representing voters.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        I’ll be telling my bank I’ll be taking my mortgage elsewhere. I pray that’s still possible.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      I’ve been on Firefox for years. Was never much of a problem, but lately there’s more and more sites that require a Chromium-based browser. Some of them quite crucial. A list from experience:

      1. My bank’s mortgage page
      2. Microsoft Teams - only supports Chrome, safari and edge on MacOs.
      3. Microsoft Office - has weird quirks on MacOs
      4. The new Adobe Express, requires Chrome or Edge
      5. Google Meet - after years google still only supports Chromium-based browsers if you wish to use video effects
      6. Microsoft’s new video editing thing
    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      “The slogan was also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent”

      • Paul Buchheit, the creator of Gmail
      • Lemmington Bunnie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Subtext: now that we have the market share, it’s our turn to exploit the users.

        It’s sick.

  • M-Reimer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 year ago

    The problem is that Google is able to more or less dictate how the web works at that time. Apart from Firefox and Safari, which both only have a minor market share, pretty much everything is Chrome based.

    If Google wants to push some silly idea just to ensure that their silly ads are not blocked, then they’ll do it. I fear that noone really can stop this stupid idea.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      We need to hope some governing body steps in and slaps Google with antitrust, because this is a pretty clear abuse of monopoly

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        I’m sure our octogenarian leaders who are oh so internet savvy will fully understand the nuances associated with browser market share will craft laws to resolve this issue.

        /s unfortunately.

        Truth be told… Google applies $$$ to our aged elected officials who don’t understand what a browser is much less the nuances behind chrome and chromium based browsers. And will vote by what their campaign donators say… :(

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      Chromium based forks (e.g. Brave) can disable or remove the features they don’t want. For example, if Google adds a feature that always shows their ads, Brave can disable that feaure or remove it. Being Chromium-based is not as bad as people usually seem to think.

      In this proposed DRM-like feature it is slightly different case because Chrome browser is so widely used.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      On the other hand, I don’t really have a fundamental problem with it. I don’t use Chrome and am not going to use this. My approach to websites using it will be the same as programs not running on my operating system: I’ll simply ignore them, same as I already ignore websites today that don’t serve me because of GDPR.

      I also do see a problem in adblocking. It’s just that it’s the lesser of two evils for me and as such, I opt into it. Google, being on the other side of the situation, for good reasons comes to a different assessment.

      All in all I don’t think this is a good development, but OTOH, if someone doesn’t want me to visit their site, that’s ok.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    Google needs to be broken up. It needs to separate in at least 5 different companies:

    1. Admob/Adsense
    2. Ads/Adwords
    3. Search
    4. Android
    5. Chrome
  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    Google became what it is because they had the best search results. Today, other like qwant and sometimes even bing are better. If it was not for Android, the reasons for remaining stuck with Google would have become sparse already. And I daresay Apple is now the less evil option.

  • Noah
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Luckily, other browser manufacturers (Mozilla, Vivaldi, Brave, and even the WWWC) have already spoken out against this proposal. Google loves marketing it as ‘optional’, which it obviously won’t be once implemented. A system like this would be very dangerous for smaller browsers, as it’s incredibly vague who decides what authorities would be allowed to verify browsers.

    Additionally, this is presented as a way to remove captchas from the web by proving a request is coming from genuine hardware. However, this proves absolutely nothing about a request being genuine or non-spam. The only thing this proves is that it was created by a ‘genuine device’, so all a malicious user would have to do is to (automatically) send the request via a verified device and they’d pass the check.

  • @Fapper_McFapper
    link
    English
    81 year ago

    Fine, I’ll make my own web, with blackjack, and hookers!

    Fuck Google, I guess we’re going back to the days of BBS’.

  • ShroOmeric
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    Sure, bring that shit to Europe and let’s see how it goes…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    i mean this is like working on the nuclear bomb except you’re eager to drop it on yourselves in the name of corporate profits and ad revenue. virulently disgusting

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    Nothing new here.

    Same old shit.

    They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do.

    There will be ways around it.

    • M-Reimer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      It will be difficult to get around this on smartphones. Those are walled gardens already.

      But I wonder how Google plans to make this “feature” for desktop PCs? Won’t work at all on Linux and Mac and requires a kernel level always on spy driver to watch the Chrome process to prevent tampering with it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        and requires a kernel level always on spy driver to watch the Chrome process to prevent tampering with it?

        That would be one method, yeah. The attester supplies a kernel driver and uses that to generate the auth tokens communicating with it via some protocol or via scanning memory.

        The driver is just chilling in the machine, perhaps even evasive to lsmod, such that the only way to detect it is to have your own driver monitoring for some specific signal before the attestor driver gets installed, and then using that signal to track its installation.

        There’s always a way. But, as you say, with phones it’s not as simple.

        GrapheneOS or some other ROM on an unlocked Android phone is probably going to be the only way of bypassing it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        You already can’t get around this on smartphones. So many companies force you to use their app and only their app if you’re not in front of a desktop.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    Question: Would Pi-holes get around this or would websites still recognise that there’s traffic being blocked?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      Piholes don’t actually block the traffic. The ads still make it from google to your home network. Pihole just intercepts them and sends them off to nowhere before they get to any of your devices. So I believe they won’t be affected by this.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        That’s not true. Pihole voids DNS requests, not the actual HTTP responses. When trying to look up an ad, it tells your devices to look at an unassigned ip address which will then not respond with anything.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          I stand corrected. Appreciate you setting the record straight. Apologies if my response misled anyone.

        • @Fapper_McFapper
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          I don’t know which one of you is correct so I’m upvoting all of you because I fucking love Pihole.

          • Gray
            link
            fedilink
            English
            81 year ago

            The rebuttal is correct.

            DNS response from pihole makes it so your browser doesn’t even make the request to the server providing the AD. A blocked ad via DNS doesn’t make it to your device, and doesn’t even get downloaded from the remote server.