this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
986 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34989 readers
323 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] narwhal@lemmy.ml 85 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So is the only way around it to not use Chromium-based browsers? Or does it pollute everything??

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That will work until websites start requiring it. At that point browsers like Firefox have to either capitulate and implement Google's DRM or become unusable for the majority of websites.

And then we'll have a web where the corporations have complete control over what you can view and how. Ad blocking and anti-tracking will be things of the past, and corporate websites will have a unique key from your browser to help them track you around the web. And no more hiding your identity behind anonymous browsers over Tor or VPNs.

So we found out about this about 4 days ago, and when people objected they shut down people's ability to log issues or comment on the GitHub repo. And now they're already cramming it into their browser. This is strong evidence that Google knows it's unpopular and tried to keep it under wraps as long as possible so they could get it into the browser before people had time to react.

[–] eek2121@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let them require it. Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

I can also see Apple taking a stand against this. They have a competing (and much more reasonable) implementation that respects user privacy.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google's ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google's ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even if the effects didn't go this far (which I agree they quite probably will), it wouldn't be feasible for other search engines to just exclude sites that implemented Google's DRM. If Google makes it attractive enough to the owners of major sites to implement this (and it will be attractive if it ensures they get ad views), then no one will use a search engine that omits all the most popular websites. The same goes for non-Google browsers. This is really a shocking attempt by Google to use its own browser's popularity to seize an effective monopoly of the web.

[–] dewritoninja@pawb.social 32 points 1 year ago

The idea is that service providers would only trust chromium browsers

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No. The only way "around it" is to give up and use Chrome.

Everything else will have to dance to Google's tune to access any website that implements this, and that will at very least include Google's own websites.

[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Okay then, then I don’t use it, stick to Safari and phone call anyone who requires me using their site with Chrome. Or I’ll go elsewhere. I’ve been down this road with IE before…