This is why proprietary software subjugates users. Stallman is right.
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
286 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37717 readers
391 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
Stallman was right again.
The browser engine implementing the client side of this is open source. Even the attester could be open source (because good crypto doesn't need obscurity). Also the server side can be open source. It will still be a DRM and you still can't do much about it, because you can't force server/service operators to use the opensource software in a way you want. So if they want to enable WEI, they can do it. No matter if it's proprietary or open source. Actually it's even easier when it's opensource.
Firefox mother fucker, do you use it?
Nobody's going to use it when 90% of the web blocks everything except genuine Chrome on genuine Windows.
I have hope that the FTC will antitrust those cunts. At least I hope so. I'm not gonna hold my breath though.
Microsoft put Netscape and Stac out of business and got away scot-free, so yeah, not holding my breath either.
Good news there huge backlash to this so hopefully its stopped.
There isn’t much backlash at all. You just live in a Lemmy and github echo chamber.
Its not been pushed hard yet.
It might still happen. Apple's equivalent feature already rolled out in Safari.
There would be huge backlash to that but do we know when Google plans to fully push this?
I'm worried there won't be much of a backlash.
People as a whole don't seem to care very much about the bad behavior of these big tech companies.
I hope I'm wrong.
Tho there already backlash but we will see happens.
From technically savvy people, I imagine.
The average user won't understand the implications or won't care enough to avoid it. That alone would lead to a HUGE amount of adoption if/when they deploy this.
Hopefully its never deployed.
Everyone going mad and many suggesting “if you have it use Safari instead!” when Apple implemented essentially this same thing quite some time ago in Safari 🤔
That said intentions are important. I have little faith that Big G’s goal is anything other than self servin.
It's a very different thing when a browser with negligible market share does that.
Safari has over 20% browser market share. That isn't negligible.
Safari neglegibe? It accounts for about a third of US internet traffic and is the only browser you can even get on iOS (everything else there is forced to be just a reskin)
Any chance you have a link or source for this? I usually keep up on tech news but don't remember anything of this nature.
Thanks, that's interesting to read about. While I'm not a web developer, there would seem to be two very large differences between them.
-
The Apple tokens were designed for a single purpose, reducing (or eliminating) CAPCHAs, with mobile devices especially in mind. It also is not a replacement, but rather an enhancement of an existing web standard.
-
It's Apple, a company that makes their money by selling you things you actually want. Rather than Google, a company that gives you (or other companies) things (for free or discounted) so they can make money off of you.
It is especially obvious when Google has the literal first bullet-point in their "why we are developing this" as...
This trust is the backbone of the open internet, critical for the safety of user data and for the sustainability of the website’s business.
Followed by
These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots.
So yeah, Google can kindly go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
Stallman would disapprove:
Google plan make people adict of their browser and now they want to dictate web standards!
That was clear when they launched their browser
I remember when Chrome launched. It was 2008 and I was in my first year of university. People were commonly using Internet Explorer or Firefox back then, with some outliers (I used Opera). Chrome gained popularity very quickly, since it was a lot faster and lighter weight than anything else at the time.
It's interesting that Chrome has lived long enough to see itself become the bloated browser.
Part of me wants to believe that this won’t be abused and it’ll actually make the web better. The other part of me knows better.
They could, theoretically, implement this on a way that just changes the pay structure for ad impressions but I think that all that will do is incentivize website owners using Google ads to block or nag “non-compliant” users… but here’s hoping they don’t abuse it I guess because there’s basically nothing we can do to change it once it’s out there. Genies out and all that
They outright said in their own press release it's primarily to increase ad visibility by breaking ad blockers.
There's no scenario where this makes the web better
The irony is that I wasn't that against ads until they got super intrusive and started causing performance issues and breaking web pages. And of course the privacy problems with tracking cookies. But yeah, fuck all ads now, and fuck Google for trying to wring as much ad revenue out of me as possible. I switched to Firefox with uBlock.
I cant remember internet ads being good ever. From the malware and infinite popup spawning sites of the 90s and early 00s, to those old obtrusive flash based ads(PUNCH OSAMA BIN LADEN AND WIN A FREE GBA!). That said there were those sites that just had some tasteful banner ads here and there that kept things running and it feels those are getting less and less common with ads even on mainstream sites being intrusive.
Internet ads have been a cesspool for so long and then webowners wonder why people block them.
I feel like some responsibility also lies on the way ads are delivered. Even on the more respectable web they use ad services that use a combination of targeted tracking, and random nonsense that gets spooned in by the ad company without much input from the actual website.
Some people would still be entitled and complain, but I feel like most people would be more likely to whitelist sites and live with it if ads were like simple banner ads.
A simple banner ad.
Every single paragraph.
Would still make me turn to ad blockers.
they could easily just put them on the side or top and bottom, but yeah a lot of sites do that thing where the article loads and then the javascript catches up and you lose your place as the article shifts around and ads and videos start loading
Every now and then, I try to browser without an ad blocker.
That generally lasts until I encounter something that's bad enough that I don't really have a choice, and then I turn it back on.
The page needs to actually function. It needs to be possible to click on something and actually be clicking on the thing that you're intending to.
And it can not have stuff that blinks in a manner that causes a segment of the population (which includes me at times, but not 100% of the time) significant neurological problems.
That last one has been the driving force behind stuff getting reenabled a fair bit.
Oh, and if it's ads on video content, they need to be at least vaguely reasonable in regards to interruptions and length. Youtube is way past that at this point.
Most of the time, it's not the ads that bother me. Instead, it's the sale of my personal info, autoplaying videos, and possible risk of malware that bothers me if I turn my ad-blocker off. I've tried several times to find a "fair" ad-blocker.
Yup. This won't be used just to serve up unblocksble ads. If you're signed in to Google, this DRM will be used to track you, as well. VPNs will be useless because the tracking won't be done through your IP address, but through your browser, identified by DRM and tied to your Google account.
That's what this is really about. Knowing who you are, where you are, where you go, what you see, what you buy, who you associate with. Forcing you to watch ads is just the icing on the cake.
We have to see if its even fully implement and pushed in the end.