Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, the whole concept of "ads" is a bit evil by itself
Could you please elaborate?
[dead]
Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
91–100 of 486 posts
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#92It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers. Make browsing the internet possible only on macOS, Windows, Android or iOS (no custom Android distributions, definitely no LineageOS or GrapheneOS or whatever). No competi…
iirc remote attestation is reliant on hardware attestation, which means these websites will only run on authorized DRM-enforcing hardware and architectures. Only Intel, AMD, Qualcomm and the like. No open-source firmwares, architectures or hardware.
It's important to remember they are only commercial efforts. If you can value something other than money it doesn't matter what the corporate web is doing compared to human ingenuity and the internet. Let them waste their time and money write their specs.
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?
> Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way.
Who owns Mozilla? Put another way, if Google stops funding Mozilla, will it still exist?
The only reason Firefox exists is because Google wants something they can point to in court and say "look! we're not a monopoly!"
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#94I think they are signing the end of chrome dominance. People are going to flee to Firefox.
Well, considering most people using a browser don't even know of the existence of ad-blockers, I'd wager that no, most people will continue to use whatever is already installed to continue browsing Facebook as usual.
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#95This is a dumb article that's trying and failing to tie Attestation to ad blocking. > However, how this plays out with browsers that allow extensions or are modified remains a grey area. As the proposal vaguely mentions, "Web Environment Integrity attests the legitimacy of the underlying hardware and software stack, it does not restrict the indicated application’s functionality." That's not vague at all.
And if ad-blockers are considered illegitimate software?
This would be entirely in line with financial incentives of the proposed attesters and even logically defensible (oh well, we haven’t vetted uBlock, so you can’t browse with that installed).
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?
Because Google pays Mozilla ~$500M dollars a year, nearly 80% of all of Mozilla's revenue, use Google as the default search provider.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go...
If Google turned off this money faucet, Mozilla would be severely impacted. Unfortunately as Firefox's market penetration gets lower, the value of that deal gets lower, should Google stop paying it and someone like Bing takes over.
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#97I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an ex…
I agree, I use Firefox everywhere. But we must not forget the following:
In 2011 Mozilla income was 85% derrived from Google, through the primary search engine deal. Around a billion was paid over three years as part of this deal at some point. Appearantly there was bidding by Microsoft for making Bing the default, which pushed up the pricing.
So every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, since they are biting the hand that feeds them. I suppose they could take a deal from Microsoft, Yahoo or even DDG (or Baidu!), but without interest from Google I presume the funding would be lower. Quite an interesting situation. Thank God both Firefox and Chrome are open source. That is at least some small degree of insurance against potential freedom-limiting shenanigans by tech giants.
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#98The latest, tone-deaf response from a Google engineer: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
You have to be hopelessly naive to believe that the hold-back feature is going to be implemented as described, if at all, and not quietly removed when the outrage dies down. And even if it stays as described, the percentage will be low enough that those that fail attestation can be safely barraged with captchas or simply told to go away. (You can try browsing the web with TOR to get a taste of how you will be treated…
Yeah, it was only when I briefly worked for a FAANG that I realised that it doesn't really matter how many well-meaning engineers you have, because ultimately they don't make the decisions. Execs make the big decisions, and they will always take the most profitable choice.
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#99I think they are signing the end of chrome dominance. People are going to flee to Firefox.
I keep seeing this comment on Hacker News and it makes me wonder. Do you only speak to engineers in your life? I'm on the side of people who think this is a violent threat against the openness of the web, but let's be real. Most of the people you'll run into on the street will have no better sense of this than they did the paradigm shift to HTTPS. In fact it will likely be even more transparent than that, which is part of what makes it so insidious. If you're waiting for a public to mobilise against a self-evident threat, this will fly into being without protest. Most people will need to be made to understand its danger, because they absolutely will not flee by themselves.
Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible
#100A good and measured article marred only by a silly, clickbait title. Unless there is a plan to allow attesters that are independent bodies then this is absolutely a threat to the open internet, or what's left of it. The biggest dead canary for me is the lack of calling this out explicitly by Google or Apple. We're left to assume that Google is hand-wavingly saying "don't worry we can take care of that" when the priva…
What is wrong when walking into a web shop with disclosing how much money you earn and may be able to part with?
It terrifies me that I'm actually unsure whether this comment is sarcastic.