Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google vs. the Open Web

interpeer.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 207 posts

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#101

Post by Daril »

Dah00n wrote: post #65
Daril wrote: post #41

This is a clear sign of Google's weakness. They are losing their monopoly and are desperately trying to hold on to the net. In the last few weeks, they have announced that they will try to block navigation if you have an ad blocker installed (for example, when watching a video on Youtube). Take a look at Fuchsia for another example ... they are losing the control on Android, so they started this new project ... it is…

If you are this paranoid about someone showing ads or collecting your information, maybe Brave isn't the best choice, with their history of getting caught with both hands in the cookie jar. Especially since you already use Firefox elsewhere. Mozilla also collects information btw.

I have another level of blocking : AdGuard Home. I know that there is no optimal solution. I do the best I can with what I have.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#102

Post by everdrive »

Dah00n wrote: post #65
Daril wrote: post #41

This is a clear sign of Google's weakness. They are losing their monopoly and are desperately trying to hold on to the net. In the last few weeks, they have announced that they will try to block navigation if you have an ad blocker installed (for example, when watching a video on Youtube). Take a look at Fuchsia for another example ... they are losing the control on Android, so they started this new project ... it is…

If you are this paranoid about someone showing ads or collecting your information, maybe Brave isn't the best choice, with their history of getting caught with both hands in the cookie jar. Especially since you already use Firefox elsewhere. Mozilla also collects information btw.

I almost never see meaningful detail regarding what is collected and what it’s used for. Is Google’s collection equivalent to Brave’s, or to Firefox’s? I’d be very surprised if there were not significant differences between what is collected here. Comments like this draw a false equivalence between the three.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#104

Post by darklycan51 »

I actively despise google and avoid any product they make (except youtube, got no choice there) for this reason.

It goes back all the way 2010, I remember opening up chrome to try it, right clicking on a youtube channel background to attempt to download like I could on firefox just fine, and it not having the option, why would you go out of your way to restrict a user easily being able to right click and download? well, because you believe you own the web.

Never used Chrome and never will, if you use Chrome you are actively making it worse for yourself in the future once they implement enough bad policies that it becomes near impossible for almost anyone or anyone to bypass their restrictions.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#105

Post by pmlnr »

tlogan wrote: post #92

This is how the situation will unfold... - The WEI check will be designed with a level of simplicity that tech-savvy individuals or hackers can easily bypass. Criticisms or objections will be quieted with comments like, "You just need to initiate the browser using these 50 different settings and you're good." - On the other hand, the WEI check will be intricate enough that an average user won't be able to circumvent…

Try using https://microg.org/ to replace Google Play Services - it's not your average tech-savvy level.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#106

Post by saurik »

llm_nerd wrote: post #59
gary_0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or crawlers, for that matter. Companies like Google love kicking down the ladder. You can bet that the Google crawler will have its own "attestation token" but if you want to crawl the Web with your own code you'll be SOL. All these billion-dollar tech companies got their start thanks to open, accessible, hackable systems. Now it's all being locked down so only the big guys can play, and the rest of us have to pay…

"You can bet that the Google crawler will have its own "attestation token" but if you want to crawl the Web with your own code you'll be SOL." Let's be real here and note that while most web properties welcome Google crawlers, there are many, many other scrapers/crawlers that offer zero value to web operators while costing resources.

Ok... but the result of fixing that by whitelisting only Google is a de facto full-on monopoly for Google search.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#107

Post by SllX »

cataphract wrote: post #42
maxsilver wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally the FTC's job to block most mergers (they are required by law to block bad mergers, see https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... for details) Their leadership isn't "awful", their leaders are finally doing their job , for the first time in decades.

Doing their job by losing everything in court like the Activision/Microsoft case just last week? Great use of government resources.

So a technical note I’m posting here mostly because I dug into this only for a comment I was responding to to be deleted:

What they lost in the case they filed in June was an enjoinment to prevent the merger and acquisition of Activision/Blizzard until their own FTC judge (read: an administrative law judge that exists outside of Article III and is within the chain of command of the Executive branch) could hear the case on August 2nd. The merger had a termination date of July 18th, so they needed that to continue their administrative review. Discovery was finished, it was just the trial, but without being able to enjoin the trial because in the opinion of Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley they were unlikely to prove the merits of their assertions, the trial before the FTC judge would have been moot by the time it occurred. It’s been formally cancelled by the FTC by the way.

I’m not disagreeing with you by the way, I just wanted a place to park this information in the discussion. They started this action in December and failed to win even an enjoinment against Microsoft and Activision temporarily stopping the merger until their own guy could hear the case.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#108

Post by allisdust »

protocolture wrote: post #79

This is kind of overblown isnt it? I remember sites doing all sorts of hacks to identify and shut down IE back in the day. "Works best in Chrome/Firefox". "The proposal calls for at least the following information in the signed attestation: The attester's identity, for example, "Google Play". A verdict saying whether the attester considers the device trustworthy. " So a user agent string and a weak attestation? This…

What part of attestation don't you understand? If linked with a OS level signing with keys stored on TPM, it's game over for private browsing. The only thing worse than companies proposing such measures are the useful idiots downplaying the impact. If someone disagrees, pray tell us muddle brains how to bypass this on a proprietary OS with locked boot and tpm stored keys.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#109

Post by kmeisthax »

sakex wrote: post #3

Soon, websites will require kernel access to make sure you don't have cheats installed. (Sarcasm, obviously)

This is already one of the use-cases listed for WEI. The intended implementation of WEI will be Play Protect which lives in ARM TrustZone and thus runs above the kernel[0]. So you'll have something even more invasive than kernel-level anticheat.

[0] In ARM speak, kernel mode is EL1, hypervisor mode is EL2, and TrustZone mode is EL3. Each exception level is a higher level of privilege.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#110

Post by AlexandrB »

Dah00n wrote: post #69
JimtheCoder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Lina Khans performance has been stellar thus far, so I'm sure they'll get right on this...

Who has done better?

No kidding. Previous FTCs sat on their hands and allowed Meta (nee Facebook) to acquire their up-and-coming competitors with no pushback.
Post reply on HN