this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
785 points (97.8% liked)

196

16710 readers
2781 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

πŸ†˜

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not just chromium in and of itself. It's that it would be a browser that's unmodifiable by the user, so no unapproved extensions, no ad blockers, etc.

It's a way for google to tell its ad buyers that "hey, we can 100% guarantee the end user is seeing your ads if they're using this browser". And then all of the corporate websites cater only to that browser, or give a different user experience for all other browsers.

Personally, I find this problematic for several reasons:

  1. I wouldn't be in control of my browser and how it executes arbitrary code on my machine

  2. The system creates second class citizens on the internet

  3. It cedes control of the open internet to corporations, like google

  4. Privacy; I don't give a shit what google says about pseudonymous and group identities, researchers have found problems after problems after problems...

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know, I can’t wait for the EU to tear Googles ass open until an elephant can walk through it. DMA my beloved

[–] Sheeple 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They already did so with META and won. And are currently doing so to YouTube.

EU is the internets lifesaver

[–] Synthead 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine being forced to read ads when looking at a newspaper.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

imagine defending advertisements and the largest corps in the world...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Also the attestations have to be signed by the underlying OS, so probably this would not work on Linux either.