“Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web • Hacker News Board

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#51

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #33

sircastor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean to be an apologist here, but Google’s vs Apple’s intention seem crystal clear. Google is trying to make it impossible not to see the ads it’s selling. Apple’s intent seems to be lock down the Apple platform…? I know Apple is blatantly abusive in lots of spaces, but Chrome is a super-majority of the browsers in use. It’s an odd take to spin this into “they started it” finger pointing. The reason Chrome is…

The stated goal of both is the same: to provide a privacy-preserving primitive for anti-abuse. Both explicitly state that the goal is not to exclude competing browsers or operating systems or to limit things like browser features or extensions. You're just assuming that they're both lying about the motives, and making up the worst possible motives you can think of for each. I think in both cases you're wrong, and the…

I don't pay enough attention to comment on Apple, but of course I assume Google is lying; they're an adtech company trying to ship something that would make it trivial to break all adblockers. Why would you ever trust them?

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#52

Post by lostmsu » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

cmgriffing wrote: post #43

mrguyorama wrote: post #10

What is Brave going to do when the code for WEI becomes load bearing in the chromium code base? Still excuse after excuse after excuse to just not use Firefox. I literally don't care if you have to hold up your nose, there's only one actual alternative browser engine, and it's a matter of survival for anyone who doesn't want the whole internet controlled by google. It could be half as fast (it isn't) and use twice as…

Brave is not just a wrapper on top of Chromium. It is actually using a forked version of Chromium. So, it might not be that big of a concern.

One doesn't really preclude another in practice.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#53

Post by commandlinefan » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:30 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #10

What is Brave going to do when the code for WEI becomes load bearing in the chromium code base? Still excuse after excuse after excuse to just not use Firefox. I literally don't care if you have to hold up your nose, there's only one actual alternative browser engine, and it's a matter of survival for anyone who doesn't want the whole internet controlled by google. It could be half as fast (it isn't) and use twice as…

Or Brave could just do what they should have done in the first place and develop their own browser engine from the ground up - by now they ought to have the resources to do so, and the world could really do with more than the handful we have now.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#54

Post by JeremyNT » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:37 PM UTC

thewataccount wrote: post #29

mrguyorama wrote: post #10

What is Brave going to do when the code for WEI becomes load bearing in the chromium code base? Still excuse after excuse after excuse to just not use Firefox. I literally don't care if you have to hold up your nose, there's only one actual alternative browser engine, and it's a matter of survival for anyone who doesn't want the whole internet controlled by google. It could be half as fast (it isn't) and use twice as…

> Still excuse after excuse after excuse to just not use Firefox. What happens when Firefox refuses to implement WEI - then start to require it? If WEI becomes a common requirement then Firefox will effectively be forced to implement it or it won't be usable as a web browser at that point for the average consumer

Sure, this is what it looks like if/when we've fully lost the fight.

Those of us who currently recommend Firefox are hoping that there's still enough time to do something about this.

Maybe it's already too late, but you might as well try, you know?

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#55

Post by happytiger » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:37 PM UTC

The faster we can build usable decentralized apps and get users onto them, the better.

It should only lend urgency to leave the “old web” for those of us who are builders, makers and evangelizers.

They’re after encryption, they’re attacking anonymity, they want all of finance for themselves, and they want to kill privacy too -- I for one say NO thank you.

There is a level — almost a treble —- in these comments on how “it’s inevitable” or “already cooked” but only if you see these fights in isolation. It most assuredly it is not inevitable.

Let’s get positively focused and make hay while the sun shines and it’s not too late. There’s so much intelligence, compassion and love for humanity in this community. Let’s use it.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#56

Post by postalrat » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:53 PM UTC

gabrielsroka wrote: post #50

postalrat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave is a cryptocurrency. No thanks.

I don't see that at all. I've been using Brave for years and nothing to do with crypto. There is a BAT thing, but you can disable it.

The BAT thing is the cryptocurrency. No thanks.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#57

Post by saurik » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:54 PM UTC

mminer237 wrote: post #47

saurik wrote: post #12

It's nice that they are changing their marketing on this a bit now that there is a wave to ride and the evils of DRM are coming for them; but, let's not forgot that, at the end of the day, Brave is just another company that makes money on ads :(, and (thereby) has most of the same anti-user incentives. So, sure... they clearly don't want to be prevented from blocking other peoples' ads (a big part of their pitch); bu…

Blocking Brave's ads is literally three clicks. I don't care if I don't get paid if I block ads. What I don't want is to lose the ability to block ads or to allow websites to block me for using an unapproved system. Google seems to be working for both of those things while I don't see any chance Brave ever allows either.

You don't care... but Brave cares. The point here is that Brave has been talking up the same user-hostile tech for the same user-hostile reason: to prevent "ad fraud", as they are an ad company, like it or not.

...and, frankly, Brave isn't going to have any choice in implementing Google's plot: the web simply isn't going to work in Brave anymore if they don't, as web pages will just start refusing to give Brave any content.

The real issues are the very existence of remote attestation technology and advertisements as a business model / corporate incentive structure; imagine living in a world where we made both of these illegal.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#58

Post by jsnell » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #42

jsnell wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stated goal of both is the same: to provide a privacy-preserving primitive for anti-abuse. Both explicitly state that the goal is not to exclude competing browsers or operating systems or to limit things like browser features or extensions. You're just assuming that they're both lying about the motives, and making up the worst possible motives you can think of for each. I think in both cases you're wrong, and the…

Google is not thinking about ad blockers at all here. The first example in the WEI doc is enforcing that ads are viewed by humans: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

Sure, and that text has nothing to do with preventing the blocking of ads. It is not saying "humans shall be forced to watch ads", like you're implying. It is saying that bot clicks/views to ads should not count. (It is also saying that websites want proof of probable humanity, usually via captchas, and we should have better ways of doing that. But that aspect of the bullet point isn't really specific to ads in any way.)

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#59

Post by fsniper » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #10

What is Brave going to do when the code for WEI becomes load bearing in the chromium code base? Still excuse after excuse after excuse to just not use Firefox. I literally don't care if you have to hold up your nose, there's only one actual alternative browser engine, and it's a matter of survival for anyone who doesn't want the whole internet controlled by google. It could be half as fast (it isn't) and use twice as…

Exactly. To have a fighting chance to not loose your control over your hardware and software choices, you need to do compromises. (Which we are already loosing on many fronts.)

I see people complaining Firefox having subpar font rendering, in sufficient tab management, Mozilla not acting up to their standards, but lack on some fronts.

So what? You won't make compromises on some of your convenience and still use a user hostile company's software, or forks of it which strongholds you to their whims? And expect everything to play in your favor? Silicon Valley is trying to profit against your best interests.

I don't really say you should be using Firefox, but saying you should use some other browser which is not depending on Chromium, or forks.

I also can say Safari would not be the best choice here. As Apple is the Pioneer on restricting you, the users.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#60

Post by jsnell » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #51

jsnell wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stated goal of both is the same: to provide a privacy-preserving primitive for anti-abuse. Both explicitly state that the goal is not to exclude competing browsers or operating systems or to limit things like browser features or extensions. You're just assuming that they're both lying about the motives, and making up the worst possible motives you can think of for each. I think in both cases you're wrong, and the…

I don't pay enough attention to comment on Apple, but of course I assume Google is lying; they're an adtech company trying to ship something that would make it trivial to break all adblockers. Why would you ever trust them?

Because it is functionality they really need for other (legit!) reasons, and since trying to turn it into an anti-adblock technology would be a PR and regulatory nightmare, and make it harder to ship for the uses they actually need it for.

Lying tends to be stupid, especially for a company under so much scrutiny.