Next step Google starts scanning your face and eyeballs but doesn't bother paying for it.
Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
261–270 of 484 posts
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Safari has far more weight here though people are loathe to admit it. On HN people are more likely to complain about Safari existing and demand Chrome everywhere.
I meant "here" as in the topic at hand, not "here" as in HN.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#263Remember they already added DRM to browsers once. There was a big outcry at the time, and they still went ahead and implemented it. Now even Firefox supports Widevine. If they believe that it's in their best interest, I'm not really sure what we can do against this...
Who benefits from browsers not supporting EME? The choices were EME, Flash, or no premium VOD on the web.
> The choices were EME, Flash, or no premium VOD on the web.
Actually, it was Silverlight, not Flash. But still a plugin nonetheless.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you expand on the security improvements of v3? This is the first I've heard this. As for performance... That sounds dubious. Declarative blocking surely will be faster than v2, but what is being blocked by v2, I would imagine, is generally way slower than the difference between v2 and v3. At the end of the day, I don't see the performance of my browser negatively impacted by uBlock Origin, I see it saving CPU, ba…
Google's PR has claimed that manifest v3 has security and privacy improvements, but it's pretty straightforwardly a lie.
V3 security is like closing a window in a room with fully open door --- it's good if we have someone watching the door , and we don't.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same reasons a shop owner must sell to all customers without discriminating on ethnicity, religion, disability, etc? Would it be acceptable for a website owner to block users from Detroit (78% African Americans)[1] or block users from El Paso (82% Hispanic)[2] because the website owner claims that fraudulent ad clicking is more prevalent from those cities? Would it be acceptable to only serve web pages to peo…
I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? I’m not defending google’s crap but I should be able to block anyone I want from my websites if I choose.
> I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches?
No.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#266> Google's plan is that, during a webpage transaction, the web server could require you to pass an "environment attestation" test before you get any data. There is no value in this "attestation" for me as a user. I want to be able to do whatever I want with the browser (for example, remove ads or block access to canvas and webgl) and I want sites to be unable to know this. And probably this attestation will provide a…
Ehhh, it depends. In theory one could imagine a scenario like a bank website refusing to be accessed unless the entire OS & browser stack pass attestation - as that would rule out things like keyloggers, malicious browser extensions, and session hijacking. In practice it'll just be used to lock down content and force unskippable ads on users, of course.
IT in big banks is usually horrible and their security departments would close you and your family in a cage if it was possible and helped them avoid liability. If attestation exposes let's say your password policy, be sure you'll be required to set it for monthly changes the moment they can do that.
I don't want them to have a say in how I run my devices.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Firefox is a perfectly viable alternative to Chrome that very few people use. The problem is that it isn't. Do you know why Firefox managed to usurp IE6 in the first place? Because it won the adoption and appeal of tech enthusiasts and professionals. Mom and pop (read: the general population) switched to Firefox from IE6 because their tech nerd kids installed it for them, and the enterprise largely moved off of IE6…
Nope firefox still runs gecko. It's a small difference, perhaps, but its "my" browser in a way chrome will never be. Blink sucks. Also, not a clue what you are on about - I don't have an issue with firefox. Chrome is basically for dealing with google stuff, and for the rest of the web I don't care about them.
Which Google stuff requires Chrome? I run even Google sites on Firefox and they seem to run fine.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
I care, and I've basically stopped using my iphone for anything because the web is an abysmal experience full of ads even with the maximum amount of ad blocking possible on iOS. I hate the iPhone and the only reason I haven't switched back to android is that it seems to manage to, somehow, still be even worse. We are well and truly on the other side of the enshitification event horizon on mobile, and it looks like Go…
Not trying to get you back on your iPhone but I can tell you that 1Blocker + NextDNS do wonders when it comes to blocking ads on the web using iphones. Granted, sometimes some sites do break for weird reasons but i'm happy to live with that if it means I get to avoid ads. Hell, it even manages to block ads on mobile youtube.
My personal experience with ad blocking on iOS is that it’s both far less effective overall than ublock origin, and still manages to break a lot more sites. I have 0 tolerance for ads though- so even a 99% success rate on a site is unacceptable to me and I’ll just not use that site on my phone. Maybe 2/3rds of sites fail by that criteria for me. If ublock origin on my desktop computer also fails, then I don’t use the site at all- but that’s a vanishingly rate occurrence.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I care, and I've basically stopped using my iphone for anything because the web is an abysmal experience full of ads even with the maximum amount of ad blocking possible on iOS. I hate the iPhone and the only reason I haven't switched back to android is that it seems to manage to, somehow, still be even worse. We are well and truly on the other side of the enshitification event horizon on mobile, and it looks like Go…
You could use Brave or Orion and get adblocking on iOS
Until Apple allows other browser engines, everything is still limited to the same set of blockers you can get in safari. None of them are remotely good enough compared to ublock origin. My current phone probably has around 6-12 months of life left in it, and if Apple doesn’t have a solution by then I’m dropping the iPhone and either going with a de-Googled android build or giving up on smart phones altogether.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#270Earlier 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…
> when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit. Yeah, Apple was toast after they did that. Their share price in 2014 when they did that was $24, and immediately afterwards it rose to $33 over the next 12 months. And since then, it's just been one long slow decline to almost $200 a share, as their global mobile market share has gone from the 24% it enjoyed in 2014 to the measly 29% it e…
Look at all of the albums Apple has pushed on people since then.