Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#391

Post by midoridensha » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 1:26 AM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #159

midoridensha wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see with this idea is that MS doesn't really have much leverage to push Edge on people any more. People aren't just using Windows PCs for their web browsing these days; lots of people are using mobile devices, and many don't even have PCs any more. Google and Apple control the mobile device market (roughly half and half, though it depends on which country you're in too). If a bunch of websites suddenly…

"The problem I see with this idea is that MS doesn't really have much leverage to push Edge on people any more" But they do it any way they can. I never intented to open edge even once, but through various sketchy things, I had it open way too many times. (when you click on the "learn more about this awesome landscape" - you land in edge, open a pdf, edge, saved a mhtml in chrome and open it, edge again. Search for c…

What do you expect if you're using an MS platform?

Meanwhile, all of us not using MS platforms (Linux, Android, MacOS, iOS) don't see any of this.

MS only has power over you because you choose to give them that power. They have no power at all over anyone not using an MS OS.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#392

Post by daurentius523 » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 1:30 AM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #388

zb3 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is anticompetitive, if a given service (which is defacto mandatory) strikes a deal with select few hardware vendors to artificially make it impossible to access the service using different hardware (for purely business reasons), then it obviously is anticompetitive.

>strikes a deal with select few hardware vendors That isn't what is happening. Anyone can become a manufacturer for Windows PCs or Android certified phones.

Right because Microsoft and Google don't mandate what can and cannot be installed by manufacturer… oh wait.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#393

Post by flagrant_taco » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 3:05 AM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #303

flagrant_taco wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of questionable business practices that Microsoft could probably be slapped on the wrist for of anyone cares, but I'm not actually sure there's a good antitrust claim that could lead to a breakup there.

There's always bundling a web browser with their OS and giving it an unfair advantage over all other browsers, aka the exact thing they were sued for last time .

That lawsuit SAS honestly complete bullshit. Going after Microsoft for having plentiful stolen their browser would have been one thing, but saying an OS couldn't ship software applications out of the box is crazy. What do you find when booting up an OS for the first time? Am empty desktop and no way to install anything?

What apple has done with browsers at least seems more egregious. Windows didn't stop you from installing a different browser, ios does. There was even a long running joke that the only good use for IE was to install a real browser.

It wouldn't be hard to find a reason to sure Microsoft though. Take a look someone at where the legal text states their software builds were made and ask what tax benefits one might get from running production builds on servers in the Caribbean.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#394

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 3:13 AM UTC

civilitty wrote: post #296

idlewords wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you suggest has any impact, and your model of how many people it takes to influence a Senator is frankly delusional. A max donation to a campaign will get you a signed thank-you card if you're lucky. Policy on stuff like tech is set by staffers, most of whom work from material helpfully pre-drafted for them by lobbyists. There are some legislators (like Wyden of Oregon) who have very good in-house people…

I never said you could buy a Senator's vote for the max donation, just that you can get their ear. You should try harder if all you get is a thank you card because a decent sized donation is the easiest way to quickly establish a relationship with their office. YMMV but I've helped several nonprofits in SoCal navigate Congress and I'm constantly surprised by how little coordinated effort it takes to effect legislatio…

You will not be getting in a senator's ear for the maximum campaign donation. Senate races are nosebleed expensive, and the federal maximum doesn't scale with the kind of race. It has not been my experience that large donations to congressional candidates get you any real airtime either (which is a good thing), and House races cost 1/20th what Senate races cost.

Now, if you max out any Democratic race anywhere in the country, Raja Krishnamoorthi will ring you up from Illinois CD8, and you can talk his ear off. But it's a grift. He's not going to do anything for you. With my John Williamson voice activated: he - just - likes - talking - to - donors.

As regards affecting legislation, I'd be interested in hearing some specifics about your experience here. What legislation did you see get altered, and what were the tactics that accomplished it?

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#395

Post by nielsbot » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 3:57 AM UTC

bombolo wrote: post #99

samwillis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may seem like a good idea but so much of Google's power comes from the Search + Search Ads monopoly. That is where they are anticompetitive to the max, that is where a change needs to happen. Splitting everything else off doesn't solve the core problem. Within Search + Search Ads you have a platform where Google are/have: - the sole vendor of a digital asset - ads - the sole marketplace for that asset - a closed…

Let's not forget maps, where they arbitrarily decide to show you a shop/hotel/restaurant 5km away when there is one 200m away.

One reason I prefer Apple Maps. shrug Let’s see if it stays ad-free.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#396

Post by hakfoo » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:12 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #17

It's time to start lobbying hard for an antitrust breakup of Google. This DRM plan, as abuse of a monopoly position, provides more political coverage for a forced breakup. It's pretty clear how to break up Alphabet, because it grew mostly by acquisition. - Google - search, ads on search pages and nothing more. - DoubleClick - third party ads on other sites. - Analytics - services to web sites. - Cloud - the money-los…

Rather than sharding the company, and getting stuck in endless discussions of where exactly to draw lines and what business units are unsustainable, why not nationalize it?

The "projecty" things like Chrome and Android and Waymo are arguably money sinks that will produce things of significant public value over time-- what if we funded them like other research probjects, with the understanding that the commercial applications will either generate public revenue or directly enhance domestic competitiveness. Imagine if in 5 years, the American carmakers had highly discounted access to Waymo's self-driving technology, but Mercedes and BMW still have to roll their own or license it at an intentionally hostile price?

The revenue-generating stuff could be "commoditized" -- turn it into white-label products they'll resell to all comers. You no longer go to Google, you go to a Google Reseller who provides their own ad or subscription monetization model to pay for the underlying infrastructure cost. Since they all have the same core index, they start from strong competitive parity, and then they can focus on their differentating features-- extended custom indexes, more tools, etc.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#397

Post by seanhunter » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:24 AM UTC

rocho wrote: post #190

samwillis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may seem like a good idea but so much of Google's power comes from the Search + Search Ads monopoly. That is where they are anticompetitive to the max, that is where a change needs to happen. Splitting everything else off doesn't solve the core problem. Within Search + Search Ads you have a platform where Google are/have: - the sole vendor of a digital asset - ads - the sole marketplace for that asset - a closed…

Even if you split the search and ads divisions into two companies, what prevents them from entering into a partnership and keep doing whatever they do now?

The court order would embargo that for a period of time.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#398

Post by meragrin_ » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:55 AM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #338

meragrin_ wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest issue is that web designers will design around WEI such that the web is unusable without it. For example, while the current use case might be “captcha without WEI, no captcha with WEI”, a future use case might be “captcha with WEI, 401 without WEI” You know they can do that right now, right? They aren't doing it. Will more do it because it is simpler now? Sure. Will it put "an end to the open web"? Nope…

I’m not sure what you mean by “they aren’t doing it”. WEI doesn’t exist yet, obviously nobody is blocking clients who aren’t attested. More to the point, even the author of this proposal has recognized this is an issue, identified it as so in the proposal, then failed to put forward a workable solution. That’s my problem.

> I’m not sure what you mean by “they aren’t doing it”.

Making the web impossible to use if you don't fit into their specific requirements. WEI is just another signal. It won't be the only signal for the vast majority of the web. Google cannot do anything to break the web without the help of Apple. Frankly, Apple has a better chance of breaking anything open than Google does. Apple has the vertical control. Google has what? Chrome? I just don't understand how people seem to think Google has all this power, but continue to ignore Apple.

> WEI doesn’t exist yet, obviously nobody is blocking clients who aren’t attested.

Yet a lot people seemingly know its going to do this, that, and some other bad thing even though there is no proof and stated goals which are the opposite.

> More to the point, even the author of this proposal has recognized this is an issue, identified it as so in the proposal, then failed to put forward a workable solution. That’s my problem.

They cannot prevent websites from requiring X to access their sites. There is no workable solution to force someone to accept traffic against their wishes. If they only accept requests with some custom header, that's their prerogative. Many features of browsers have been (ab)used for "nefarious" purposes. Should we get rid of those? This whole thing feels like since Trump is not president in the US any more, certain people need a boogeyman and are using Google in his place. Anything Google does is automatically bad.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#399

Post by gniv » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 6:34 AM UTC

rapnie wrote: post #60

We all let it come this far, because of how we treat the services Google provides: As nice free and helpful tools. Talking about "Chrome this and that" all the time we forget what that really means, namely: Using the strategic tools of the largest Advertising Agency in the world, that allows them to ever grow their dominance. Chrome, GMail and all that jazz all fit into a global-scale ad-tech framework to push shady…

How did you get from Advertising Agency to Shady Business? Agencies on Madison Avenue are not generally thought of as shady.

Re: Google’s Plan to DRM the Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

#400

Post by BonitaPersona » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #194

mandmandam wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seriously don't care about privacy, lock-in, loss of access to resources, right to repair, etc. They care even less about this stuff than they do about plastic pollution, or systemic inequality and racism, or PFAS contaminating the world's water, or pesticides and runoff decimating biospheres. They don't care about corruption at the highest levels of government and justice, black sites and torture, or illegal…

If I’m marginally informed there is no reason other people shouldn’t be. If they already have the phone all the information in the world is literally at their fingertips.

There are plenty of issues you're not marginally informed and actively acting on. You're not judging yourself poorly for being uninformed and non-proactive on those topics, specifically because you're not aware or interested in them.

You can currently argue that the topics you're marginally informed are "more important" than the ones you're not, but how would you honestly know? Can it be objectivelly substantiated?

If you just see what happens in reality, it is that different people is focusing on different issues, oftentimes pushing for different or even opposing goals, and everybody believing their focus is more important than the others.

Also, you get a lot of people without any focus outside their physical scope, living perfectly fulfilling lives, which are the ones your parent poster refers as the "victims" being "blamed".