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

Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 484 posts

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#151

Post by azemetre »

judge2020 wrote: post #85
mabbo wrote: post #32

> Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants. This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.…

Even if Google were forced to partition off employees and give up control of Chrome, they would still be allowed to be an influential force that gets a seat at the Chrome decision-making table, just the same as Meta, Apple, etc if they were to want it. How would this have changed the existence of the Web Integrity API?

Similar arguments were made about AT&T and I think the country survived. Break them up, then use the precedent to break up every other big tech co.

A competitive market is way more important than Google.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#152

Post by TylerE »

nl wrote: post #97
ineptech wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this. I'm sure most iphone users don't care when you ask them about privacy or manifest v3 as an abstract concept, but remember what happened when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit. They may not write blog posts about privacy or donate to the EFF, but they have deeply personal relationships with "their" phone and they absolutely hate being reminded that it isn't reall…

No one I knew really cared much about the U2 album except that it was a bad album and they didn't want it in their collection. From the people I know there no one upset about the power dynamics - everyone who complained would have been 100% happy if Apple had given them an album they liked.

And also, in a bug I'm not sure was entirely on Apple, when plugged into many car stereos iTunes would start playing the first song in your library, so users were annoyed because everythime they'd plug their phone into their car to charge it would start playing a 3rd tier U2 album.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#153

Post by Klonoar »

kevincox wrote: post #100
nl wrote: post #96

Are you using Chrome now? Hate to say it, you are part of the problem. Switch to anything else. I'm not a super anti-Google person. I use Gmail and Google as my search engine. But Firefox is a good browser that I use as my daily driver, and Edge, Brave, Safari and the DDG browser are other options. Switch today and start taking away Google's leverage.

Edge and Brave are based on Chromium. While Brave would likely block this API for a while (until too many sites require it and it would hurt their market share) they don't block most changes that Google pushes into Chrome so are still largely contributing to Google's power over the Internet. So if you really want to disrupt Google's control over the web platform the only options are really Firefox and Safari.

Safari has far more weight here though people are loathe to admit it. Apple's market share is a direct check on Google's ability to push things through so easily.

Firefox unfortunately does not have the numbers on their side nor will they seemingly risk their Google payout deal. At this point, if you're using it, you're doing it because it has specific features or extensions you want, or you believe that it's ethically the right choice and you're comfortable with the trade-offs.

(I love Firefox, I just think we need to be realistic here)

Edit: I will actually note, in thinking after posting this comment, that it wouldn't surprise me if Apple was actually down for this proposal. Sigh.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#154

Post by TylerE »

userbinator wrote: post #131

It's great to see this getting more attention. User-agent discrimination (i.e. "go away if you're not using the latest version of Chrome") needs to become illegal. As long as I'm not overloading your service or similar, what hardware or software I use must not be restricted. The same goes for other deliberate obstacles to accessibility and interoperability --- creating a "standard" that's so complex and churned frequ…

Why shouldn't the owner/operator of a website be able to decide who to sling bits to?

How is this, conceptually, any different from sites that used to block IE out of spite?

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#155

Post by kevincox »

Klonoar wrote: post #153
kevincox wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edge and Brave are based on Chromium. While Brave would likely block this API for a while (until too many sites require it and it would hurt their market share) they don't block most changes that Google pushes into Chrome so are still largely contributing to Google's power over the Internet. So if you really want to disrupt Google's control over the web platform the only options are really Firefox and Safari.

Safari has far more weight here though people are loathe to admit it. Apple's market share is a direct check on Google's ability to push things through so easily. Firefox unfortunately does not have the numbers on their side nor will they seemingly risk their Google payout deal. At this point, if you're using it, you're doing it because it has specific features or extensions you want, or you believe that it's ethical…

I think the most important thing is getting off Chrome. And ideally completely off Chromium. I agree that Safari is a good option to keep Google on check at least for many changes. But having Mozilla in the story as well would also be valuable. Even if both Safari and Firefox could pass 50% together that would be a huge difference.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#156

Post by gary_0 »

pessimizer wrote: post #124
gary_0 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Web will cease to be an open system, and will become a glorified fax machine and cable TV network. Those few who care will turn to more esoteric, incomplete, user-unfriendly but open systems. Eventually one of those systems will gain popularity with nerds, academics, and weirdos. They'll fill it with information and media they compile and create in their spare time, and it will interoperate in useful ways that fo…

ISPs will not be letting that traffic through. So no little romantic underground. No cycle; the internet is happening just once, and we're in it. The assumption that everything is necessarily part of a little epicycle of history somehow mashes together Whig history and and an inert nihilism. Don't worry, nothing matters? We're not in a movie. When they close the open internet, there will be no reason for them to open…

If we're talking cyberpunk dystopias, we'd have to resort to hand-soldered audio couplers that use our locked-down phones as modems. Once the next Android/iOS update detects and blocks unauthorized binary carriers, we'll have to steganographically hide our traffic in fake voice calls. Crappy baud rate, but good enough for encrypted text. Augment with sneakernet and local hard-wired networks running under lawns and dorm room carpets.

Although in this grim future where all communication is monitored and censored, people like you and I will probably be up in the hills in the rebel camps, and open networking protocols might be low on our list of priorities.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#157

Post by alex7734 »

kelnos wrote: post #63
mabbo wrote: post #32

> Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants. This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.…

> When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates I don't think this is remotely the case. Quite a few tech-savvy people I know (some of them software developers) use Chrome and mostly don't care about whatever Google does with it. I mention "manifest v3" and get a blank stare. I talk about advertising and ad blockers, and most people don't care, with some of them not even using ad blockers. We really…

> after all, Firefox is a perfectly viable alternative to Chrome that very few people use

I don't use Firefox because it's slower than Chrome and because their behavior regarding limiting which extensions are available in phones, requiring signed extensions, Firefox Pocket, ads in new tab page, etc, does not exactly give me confidence that Mozilla truly has my interests in mind. In fact I bet they'll implement the nightmare DRM API once it's done swiftly and without complaint lest their money flow suffer.

If Mozilla ever decides to stop screwing around, clearly position themselves as an ally of the consumer, clearly express support for adblockers and put resources into making the browser faster and better and more customizable instead of whatever makes their CEO richer then I'll switch to Firefox even if it is a bit slower or has some flaws.

In the meantime uBlock works right now in Chrome which makes it usable, so since Chrome is the fastest right now, Chrome it is.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#159

Post by nl »

kevincox wrote: post #126
nl wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See I thought about this. Google's issue if the leverage they have by having Chome used. If it is just a derivative then that lessens their leverage because the vendors of those derivative browsers do have the option of modifying Google's choices. But if you disagree, then yes, sure: use Firefox.

I agree that it lessens their control to use a derivative but it is still some control. I agree that these are far better than Chrome, but still less of an impact than a fully independent browser.

I think on HN there are too many people who don't switch because they are letting "perfect" be the goal rather than "improvement".

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#160

Post by asadotzler »

I've been reading HN since its birth and have been in the browser game for 25 years. HN, as a collective, shit all over Firefox and Mozilla for a decade while Google, who was never going to to anything but this, did just this. Good job.
Post reply on HN