• Goodie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FoxBJK@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

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

        • draughtcyclist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          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).

      • lowleveldata@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They can make sites to not work on Chrome, not the other way around. Unless you implemented some chrome only features in your site then that’s on you.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I expect businesses to impliment Chrome-only features in their sites…

          I recall Edge became Chrome based due in part to Google making needless changes on their own sites (e.g. Youtube) whjch broke functionity in Edge.

    • FoxBJK@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FoxBJK@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • tabular@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I fear voting with one’s wallet is not enough to prevent any business from doing something in their best interests at the expense of the consumer/user. When it comes to banks we’d have to place our hope the governments… which relies of them actually representing voters.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But Chrome is already the dominant browser, and Firefox has like 2% market share last time I checked.

    • sndrtj@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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.

          • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s true. Edge is the only browser with 4K support. They claim it’s due to improved HTML5 support, but who knows really. I suspect their content delivery network uses some kind of Microsoft proprietary compression or somesuch. I know old Netflix was Silverlight-based due to their DRM.

            • Corvid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              They use an Edge-exclusive DRM for 4K video on the web. You can just download the Netflix app from the Microsoft Store instead.

              • WhyJiffie
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Installing an app also makes it able to collect much more information than constrained in a proper web browser.

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, I got it wrong guys

        Chrome has won

        Let’s all go home, install a Chromium-based spyware-laced browser and bow down to our Google overlords.

  • sndrtj@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Techmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      AdSense and AdWords are essentially the same thing. AdWords is how they monetize AdSense.

    • owiseedoubleyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      “The slogan was also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent”

      • Paul Buchheit, the creator of Gmail
  • Noah@lemmy.federated.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • sgtlighttree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe it’s just Google search (ironic), but I couldn’t find anything about the W3C speaking against the proposal. If W3C is against it then I think it’s even more likely the entire thing would be shot down.

      • Noah@lemmy.federated.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Could’ve sworn I saw it in an article or post on here somewhere… but of course now that I actually need the post I can’t find it. Doesn’t really matter though, Chrome can unfortunately push standards through even if others don’t approve, just due to their sheer size alone.

  • M-Reimer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that Google is able to more or less dictate how the web works at that time. Apart from Firefox and Safari, which both only have a minor market share, pretty much everything is Chrome based.

    If Google wants to push some silly idea just to ensure that their silly ads are not blocked, then they’ll do it. I fear that noone really can stop this stupid idea.

    • sane@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need to hope some governing body steps in and slaps Google with antitrust, because this is a pretty clear abuse of monopoly

      • 7u5k3n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sure our octogenarian leaders who are oh so internet savvy will fully understand the nuances associated with browser market share will craft laws to resolve this issue.

        /s unfortunately.

        Truth be told… Google applies $$$ to our aged elected officials who don’t understand what a browser is much less the nuances behind chrome and chromium based browsers. And will vote by what their campaign donators say… :(

        • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hot take: the narrative that politicians do not understand technology due to their age is giving them too much credit. They have entire offices full of staffers whose entire job is to explain these things to them in ways they understand, as I am sure they have for some of the more important things. They just don’t care because their purpose is to serve corporations, not the public.

          • 7u5k3n@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They just don’t care because their purpose is to serve corporations, not the public.

            Sadly… This is probably pretty accurate for most of our modern politicians. I’m sure there’s the odd official who cares… But they are a vast minority.

    • Nitue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chromium based forks (e.g. Brave) can disable or remove the features they don’t want. For example, if Google adds a feature that always shows their ads, Brave can disable that feaure or remove it. Being Chromium-based is not as bad as people usually seem to think.

      In this proposed DRM-like feature it is slightly different case because Chrome browser is so widely used.

    • Laser@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand, I don’t really have a fundamental problem with it. I don’t use Chrome and am not going to use this. My approach to websites using it will be the same as programs not running on my operating system: I’ll simply ignore them, same as I already ignore websites today that don’t serve me because of GDPR.

      I also do see a problem in adblocking. It’s just that it’s the lesser of two evils for me and as such, I opt into it. Google, being on the other side of the situation, for good reasons comes to a different assessment.

      All in all I don’t think this is a good development, but OTOH, if someone doesn’t want me to visit their site, that’s ok.

      • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about when your banking site or the site your landlord wants you to pay with doesn’t work because of this shit?

        It’s gonna be a pain in the ass to switch browsers every time you run into one of these sites, and it’ll eventually make its way into most services just because they feel like it.

        There are already way too many Android apps that refuse to work on rooted phones just because they feel like not working on rooted phones after they made safety net. It will be pervasive and at some point you’ll have no option but to comply.

  • Ben Haube@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • PlatypusXray@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    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

  • ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    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.

  • Dasnap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • emogu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Piholes don’t actually block the traffic. The ads still make it from google to your home network. Pihole just intercepts them and sends them off to nowhere before they get to any of your devices. So I believe they won’t be affected by this.

      • rasensprenger@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not true. Pihole voids DNS requests, not the actual HTTP responses. When trying to look up an ad, it tells your devices to look at an unassigned ip address which will then not respond with anything.

        • emogu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I stand corrected. Appreciate you setting the record straight. Apologies if my response misled anyone.

          • Gray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The rebuttal is correct.

            DNS response from pihole makes it so your browser doesn’t even make the request to the server providing the AD. A blocked ad via DNS doesn’t make it to your device, and doesn’t even get downloaded from the remote server.

  • graphite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nothing new here.

    Same old shit.

    They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do.

    There will be ways around it.

    • M-Reimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It will be difficult to get around this on smartphones. Those are walled gardens already.

      But I wonder how Google plans to make this “feature” for desktop PCs? Won’t work at all on Linux and Mac and requires a kernel level always on spy driver to watch the Chrome process to prevent tampering with it?

      • FoxBJK@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You already can’t get around this on smartphones. So many companies force you to use their app and only their app if you’re not in front of a desktop.

      • graphite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        and requires a kernel level always on spy driver to watch the Chrome process to prevent tampering with it?

        That would be one method, yeah. The attester supplies a kernel driver and uses that to generate the auth tokens communicating with it via some protocol or via scanning memory.

        The driver is just chilling in the machine, perhaps even evasive to lsmod, such that the only way to detect it is to have your own driver monitoring for some specific signal before the attestor driver gets installed, and then using that signal to track its installation.

        There’s always a way. But, as you say, with phones it’s not as simple.

        GrapheneOS or some other ROM on an unlocked Android phone is probably going to be the only way of bypassing it.

    • sugartits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unironically: Ad blockers.

      A lot of fraud happens online via ads which are hosted by Google and Facebook.

      This is a power grab by Google. Nothing more.