this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
769 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59738 readers
3488 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Goodie 126 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If you don't like how Google is able to do this, know it's because of it's market share, and you should just use Firefox.

[–] tabular 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You should use Firefox (or a fork of it), but can we expect them to be an option if Google's actions make it so most sites only work on Chrome?

[–] Goodie 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Google can't make websites update.

Websites will only update to Chrome specific things if Chrome is the dominant browser.

How do you stop Chrome being the dominant browser? By not using it.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's not going to be that simple. CDNs like Cloudflare are already on board with this, and Safari built a similar feature last year (and virtually no one noticed or cared). This horse has already left the barn and I'm not sure there's anything we can do at this point.

EDIT - Oh and I didn't think of this but Google absolutely CAN make websites update. "We'll improve your SEO ranking if you support this new feature". They've done this before and they'll do it again.

[–] Anemervi 5 points 1 year ago

I’m not sure there’s anything we can do at this point.

Best case might be if we could get EU to ban it.

[–] Zak 11 points 1 year ago

Google can make websites that use its advertising platform support attestation. I wouldn't be surprised if that's their plan.

[–] PaulDevonUK 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfortunately Chrome is the dominant browser by a long way.

I use Firefox on every PC and device and wish it was more popular but the non geeks don't understand so use Chrome.

[–] tabular 6 points 1 year ago

I use Firefox via the forks LibreWolf (desktop) and Fennec (Android).

My hope is for Gemini browsers to get popular (Gemini is not a web browser, the "sites" are just text and links).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. We need more people to move away from it.

I typically lead by example and will tell anyone who listens about how good modern Firefox is.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except you’ll have to keep a copy of Chrome handy because this is less about what software you’re using and more about which apps are attested and approved for that website.

Once your bank says “we’re requiring this” it’s kinda over isn’t it?

[–] Goodie 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Your bank will only do it, if, and only if, Chrome is a majority of browsers they see.

How do you stop that? By not using it.

Everyone keeps postulating over a terrible future, but won't actually do anything now, today, to help prevent it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The bank already has your money. Asking you to install a free app to use their services would not be seen by regulators as unreasonable. Especially when they play the security argument.

I don’t see how Chrome has to be in the majority for some sectors to start relying on these kinds of attestations. Safari already has a similar mechanism, so that right there is the majority of mobile users when you include Chrome.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll be telling my bank I'll be taking my mortgage elsewhere. I pray that's still possible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AnUnusualRelic 11 points 1 year ago

I've never even used a chrome browser except punctually, yet here we are.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've been on Firefox for years. Was never much of a problem, but lately there's more and more sites that require a Chromium-based browser. Some of them quite crucial. A list from experience:

  1. My bank's mortgage page
  2. Microsoft Teams - only supports Chrome, safari and edge on MacOs.
  3. Microsoft Office - has weird quirks on MacOs
  4. The new Adobe Express, requires Chrome or Edge
  5. Google Meet - after years google still only supports Chromium-based browsers if you wish to use video effects
  6. Microsoft's new video editing thing
[–] Anemervi 13 points 1 year ago

It's not uncommon for such sites to work fine in Firefox if you just add a user agent switcher addon, so that is worth trying (can be limited to specific sites so you advertise Firefox usage for others).

[–] FireWire400 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

AFAIK Netflix limits resolution on every browser but Edge

[–] Mayoman68 8 points 1 year ago

See this kind of shit is why I pirate, not because I can't afford to pay $10 a month. When the $10 for a lot of content becomes $10 per month per piece of media you like, and you can't watch it on your platform of choice, and you can't watch it on a flight without paying more or not at all, this makes the $5 per month I pay for a VPN sound like a far better service.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Google needs to be broken up. It needs to separate in at least 5 different companies:

  1. Admob/Adsense
  2. Ads/Adwords
  3. Search
  4. Android
  5. Chrome
[–] Plagiatus 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay then... How do 3/4/5 make money? Ist currently everything but 1/2 loosing money in support of propping up the ads?

[–] kevinbacon 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Charge a fee, advertising is a scourge and needs to be removed from all societies with extreme prejudice.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

That's not very socially inclusive

[–] 0xff 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Isn't that the same situation with extra steps?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They dropped the "don't be evil" a while ago.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Luckily, other browser manufacturers (Mozilla, Vivaldi, Brave, and even the WWWC) have already spoken out against this proposal. Google loves marketing it as ‘optional’, which it obviously won’t be once implemented. A system like this would be very dangerous for smaller browsers, as it’s incredibly vague who decides what authorities would be allowed to verify browsers.

Additionally, this is presented as a way to remove captchas from the web by proving a request is coming from genuine hardware. However, this proves absolutely nothing about a request being genuine or non-spam. The only thing this proves is that it was created by a ‘genuine device’, so all a malicious user would have to do is to (automatically) send the request via a verified device and they’d pass the check.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rac3r4Life 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am really hoping some regulatory body strikes this down. Where's the EU when we need them?

[–] baked_tea 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you tried to talk to a local EU representative about it?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google became what it is because they had the best search results. Today, other like qwant and sometimes even bing are better. If it was not for Android, the reasons for remaining stuck with Google would have become sparse already. And I daresay Apple is now the less evil option.

[–] WilliamTheWicked 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know about that. Google is evil for sure, but I haven't read anything about their factory workers leaping from buildings to escape life.

Who knows at this point? With this level of advanced capitalism, it's getting kind of difficult to identify truly ethical corporations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] _number8_ 18 points 1 year ago

i mean this is like working on the nuclear bomb except you're eager to drop it on yourselves in the name of corporate profits and ad revenue. virulently disgusting

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fine, I’ll make my own web, with blackjack, and hookers!

Fuck Google, I guess we’re going back to the days of BBS’.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ItsMeSpez 13 points 1 year ago

Everyone, please reach out to your local anti-trust government organization to ensure they are aware of this issue. They cannot do anything about something that they are unaware of. It's easy to forget that the internet is a bubble and not everyone is clued into it's issues.

[–] ShroOmeric 8 points 1 year ago

Sure, bring that shit to Europe and let's see how it goes..

[–] Dasnap 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Question: Would Pi-holes get around this or would websites still recognise that there's traffic being blocked?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›