If it's possible to detect the feature and reject delivering to a browser that has this feature enabled.
Fight.
Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
861–870 of 876 posts
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#862Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. Let's discuss that article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875940 .
why have you shadow banned my account?
We didn't shadowban it. We told you we were banning it and why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36134639.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#863Don'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.…
Great suggestion, I did so just now.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#864Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this feature hostile to Googles users? There is genuine benefit from websites allowing you to do more things via their website (vs their app). Also: fewer/no Captchas, fewer bots on social media The platforms most people use will see benefits. Apple users apparently already do. I understand the argument that the open source experience will get worse. But frankly, google.com will still work for you. It will be…
The above user has spent the past few days doing nothing but astroturfing on this topic while failing to declare that they are or were employed by the company proposing the standard. Your personal opinion may well be that ‘this is fine’ but by failing to declare that bias and having never posted much of anything else it is difficult to interpret your actions as a good faith contribution.
I am employed at Google, though not on Chrome or Ads, nor am I doing web development. I don't have any insights into WEI besides what is publically known.
I stopped declaring my employment because it's a hassle to do that on every comment when writing multiple comments. And no one else seems to disclose their biases in this discussion.
That said, I agree with you that I should have declared my affiliation. Apologies.
As many people here, I am trying to understand the implications of WEI. Of course I will challenge the mainstream opinion to advance my own understanding and hopefully those of other readers too. I don't think arguments should be dismissed based on affiliation.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#865Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but not all (or even most) chrome features are web standards, so it makes sense that those are deployed without consensus, because there isn't anyone to get consensus with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884155 And this particular feature? They want to pretend it's s standard. You don't create a spec proposal for a feature you don't just develop internslly
Yes and the standard development process starts by designing a spec proposal and testing it! That's the first step. If the proposal ends up not being implemented, the implementation may be removed, but you still need the implementation to write the spec, that's more or less how WHATWG works.
All of the following are true statements:
- Not all chrome flags are related to spec proposals
- Not all spec proposals are related to chrome flags
- Not all chrome-led proposals are finalized
- At least one browser must implement and test the proposal before the proposal can really be considered, and multiple other browsers must implement it before it can be accepted.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#866In my opinion, I think that it is good to remember the name of these developers that have not enough moral ethic to not betray the internet and users:
- Peter Bork Pakkenberg - Rayan Kanso - Dmitry Gozman - Richard Coles - Kinuko Yasuda
Let's not forget that it is not Google in itself, but persons being the keyboard that are pushing that. People that have the power to say no but did not.
I don't know you, but at the next Google mass layoff, I will certainly not offer to give an employment to someone with so little morality like them...
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#867Earlier quoted context omitted.
My former business bank actually did this. They insisted their web app "was compatible with all modern browsers, but more compatible with Chrome" - I couldn't make transfers to other accounts with Firefox, it just hung indefinitely. Virgin Money, UK - https://uk.virginmoney.com/
I use Virgin Bank and Firefox works OK for me.
This was Virgin Money Business specifically, and it's a year since I left so it might have been fixed.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#868fwiw I found Vivaldi's overview a good primer on the situation. https://vivaldi.com/blog/googles-new-dangerous-web-environme...
Interesting and it made me try out Vivaldi. Ten minutes later I had lost trust in their claim of privacy.
It uses Microsoft Edge while installing to open links - like the link to their privacy policy - while the OS is set to use Firefox (and every other app use this). Then I found out that it has zero containerization features at all. Don't want Google cookies from one tab read in another tab? Use a new Private Window. No thanks. Uninstall, and then it used Edge to open a page asking why...
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#869Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called saving appearances.
So your position is, they'll never do it, and if they did, it's fake. Sounds like self-peasantization.
The people working at the FTC have been involved in revolving doors in the very industries they're trying to break up.
It's a simple observation. They don't have the interest to make it pass but they still have to do it to save face.
Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium
#870Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884155 And this particular feature? They want to pretend it's s standard. You don't create a spec proposal for a feature you don't just develop internslly
Yes and the standard development process starts by designing a spec proposal and testing it! That's the first step. If the proposal ends up not being implemented, the implementation may be removed, but you still need the implementation to write the spec, that's more or less how WHATWG works. All of the following are true statements: - Not all chrome flags are related to spec proposals - Not all spec proposals are rel…
> You seem to be taking things that are factual, normal, everyday, aspects of the WHATWG working process and trying to imply that chrome is doing something unusual, or untoward with its process here, but it isn't. It's doing what is necessary to make a proposal with WHATWG: have a trial.
And yet, we've seen many such proposals go through this process because Chrome is paying lip service to it. Whatever Google wants it ships. And Google wants this.
As an adjacent (ads- and tracking-related) example: Google's FLoC flopped, hard. So they immediatey shipped the replacement Topics API [1] despite there being no consensus. E.g. Firefox is against [2] (but Chrome presents Firefox's position as "No signal" in the feature status). And despite the fact that its status is literally "individual proposal, not accepted" [3]
Do not assume any good intent on Google's part when it comes to Google's business interests. Their intent is always malicious until proven otherwise. And there have been fewer and fewer cases when they have been proven otherwise.
[1] https://chromestatus.com/feature/5680923054964736
[2] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622