this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
120 points (91.1% liked)
Technology
60009 readers
3479 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The main difference from what I understand is that with Apple's system, if you did not have a token, you could still access the content. This is the opposite of what Google proposes which is to only serve the content to devices with the token, hence the backlash. It's play along or no internet for you.
Once such a token exists, escalation to requiring it is inevitable. Therefore, Apple is no less nefarious then Google here.
Google's proposal also has sites serve content to clients without the attestation, or at least so they claim in the repo (thus the proposal to make the check deliberately fail sometimes, so websites won't rely on it. Of course, there is no guarantee it will stay that way, Google could change that policy whenever they want.
The main difference is really in Google's dominance on the web. Sites can't start requiring Safari, but they can start requiring Chrome or Safari.