Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, instead of blaming the people who added the feature, blame the people who don't like it.
And now we have WEI, thanks to the constant nitpicking and anti-evangelism from people like you.
Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
781–790 of 876 posts
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#782Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's pretty generally accepted that the correct way to do web standardization is for proponents of some new thing to implement that thing and deploy it and then once it has been shown to actually work bring a spec to the the standards folks for standardization. - Behind dev flags - And then wait for consensus - And then there have to be at least two independent implementations And only then does this become a stand…
How is a company that runs a public website supposed to A/B-test marginal attach rates for a feature hidden behind a dev flag?
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#783Don't just comment and complain, contact your antitrust authority today: US: - https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation - antitrust@ftc.gov EU: - https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en - comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu UK: - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition... - general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk India: - https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/ - https://www.…
For any experiencing barriers for writing the email, my method is below; Bing Chat generated an excellent email that only needed a bit of editing.
1. Open https://vivaldi.com/blog/googles-new-dangerous-web-environme... page in (ugh) Edge.
2. Open Bing Chat sidebar (top right corner); it auto-summarizes the article.
3: My prompt: Using the that webpage summary, please write a letter reporting Alphabet for antitrust violation. Please include the following [this language is from the ftc.gov site]:
Q: What companies or organizations are engaging in conduct you believe violates the antitrust laws? A: Alphabet
Q: Why do you believe this conduct may have harmed competition in violation of the antitrust laws? A: [use the article]
Q:What is your role in the situation? A: I'm a user of the Firefox browser
[edit: line breaks for readability]
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#784Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't happen when Apple did it with Safari (and you all were quiet as a mouse as well, with HN actively defending Apple Safari monopoly with this feature enabled)... so why would NOW be any different?
Apple don't have enough web properties to force this sort of change. Google can turn around tomorrow and say that no browser without WEI can access GMail, GMaps, GSheets, Photos etc; people will have to comply, effectively killing any browser that does not support the feature. This is the problem with the Chromium monoculture. "We", as generic IT people and developers on HN, definitely have a responsibility for not d…
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#785I predict that hardware attestation will in 10-30 years become a requirement to maintain an internet connection. Given Microsoft's push to make their OS support hardware attestation as well as Google's push for technologies which use hardware attestation in broader and broader scopes (Android and iOS has supported this for apps for a long time), the technology to make this possible is increasingly becoming widespread…
What you fail to take into account, is that geeks like being able to freely goof around with stuff; and that new disruptive tech evolves precisely in the ecosystems where geeks are goofing around with stuff.
Consider the dichotomy between iPadOS and macOS. macOS still exists — and still has things like the ability to disable Gatekeeper, enable arbitrary kernel-extension installation, etc. — because the geeks inside Apple could never be productive developing an OS on a workstation that is itself a sealed appliance. They need freely-modifiable systems to hack on. And they may as well sell other people those free systems they've developed — with defaults that make the tool appliance-esque, sure, but also with clear paths to turning those safeties off.
The same thing was true in the 90s with the rise of walled-garden ISPs. The average consumer might be happy with just having access to e.g. AOL, but the people who work with computers (including the programmers at AOL!) won't be happy unless they can write a program that opens a raw IP socket and speaks to another copy of that program on their friend's computer halfway around the world. And so, despite not really mentioning as a feature, every walled-garden ISP did implicitly connect you to the "raw" Internet over PPP, rather than just speaking to the walled-garden backend BBS-style — because that's what the engineers at each ISP wanted to happen when they used their own ISP, and they weren't going to tolerate anything less.
And then, gradually, all the most interesting stuff for consumers on the Internet — all the "killer apps" — started being things you could only find the "raw" web, rather than in these walled gardens — precisely because the geeks that knew how to build this stuff, had enthusiasm for building it as part of the open web, and no enthusiasm for building it as part of a walled-garden experience. (I would bet money that many a walled-garden developer had ideas for Internet services that they wrote down at work, but then implemented at home — maybe under a pseudonym, to get out from under noncompetes.)
Even if there comes about an "attested Internet", and big companies shift over to using it, all the cool new stuff will always be occurring off to the side, on the "non-attested Internet." You can't eliminate the "non-attested Internet" for the same reason that you can't develop an Operating System purely using kiosk computing appliances.
The next big killer app, after the "attested Internet" becomes a thing, will be built on the "non-attested Internet." And then what'll happen? Everyone will demand an Internet plan that includes access to the "non-attested Internet", if that had been something eliminated in the interrim. (Which it wouldn't have been, since all the engineers at the ISPs would never have stood for having their own Internet connections broken like that.)
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#786Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#787Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple don't have enough web properties to force this sort of change. Google can turn around tomorrow and say that no browser without WEI can access GMail, GMaps, GSheets, Photos etc; people will have to comply, effectively killing any browser that does not support the feature. This is the problem with the Chromium monoculture. "We", as generic IT people and developers on HN, definitely have a responsibility for not d…
Google can also decide at any time to put those web properties behind forced logins, or paywalls or just shutter them altogether. If Google doesn't want them to be part of the open web they won't be, regardless of whether this particular set of things is implemented or not. If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem.
The point is not that Google cares about those sites - they don't. Those services are leverage that they use to control web standards, in order to enable their real cash-cow: AdSense. They will use their web properties to shove down our throats anything that makes AdSense more profitable, from the anti-adblock measures in Chrome to this one.
> If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem
I don't disagree - and I use Firefox, keep my important mail outside of Gmail, etc etc. But I recognize that many, many people don't, so the technologically literal out there have an ethical responsibility to push back against corruption of the open web.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#788Disappointing to see such a 180 on 'don't be evil'. I'm recommending Mozilla Firefox to all friends and family.
I do, and I keep having those tiring conversations, but it's really hard to get the point across in layman's terms. I have enough friends in tech who stick with Chrome out of convenience instead of just falling back on it in case something actually doesn't work in Firefox. how do I convince tech illiterate people of doing this?
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#789Don't just comment and complain, contact your antitrust authority today: US: - https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation - antitrust@ftc.gov EU: - https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en - comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu UK: - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition... - general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk India: - https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/ - https://www.…
Here you can specifically create new antitrust complaints.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#790Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why do they care so much about this? Is it only for DRM on media playback?
The stated reason is to stop bots from being counted as ad views and make sure that all ad views are done by actual humans. This is likely even honest reasoning from the people developing it. The same technology could easily be applied to simply blocking anyone who isn't verified (in the name of stopping spam, DDoS, bank security, you name it), meaning anyone not using an approved install of Windows/macOS/Android/iOS…
That one is in the category of things that is little more than a nuisance in practice since it’s so easy to circumvent, but that’s a hardware thing and therefore it’s easier to plug something in that is unauthorized. Things are getting so tightened up on the software side with secure boot, Apple’s read-only system partition and by-default App Store Only policy on the Mac, etc. that I suspect this type of thing will be a pain for normal people, though actual at-scale bad actors will probably figure it out.