• sabreW4K3@lemmy.tfOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure thing. With this current proposal, when you visit a website, the site asks your browser if you’re willing to display it as intended, basically with all and any adverts. If the answer is no, then you can’t see the content, if the answer is yes, then you’re likely using Chrome or a Chromium based browser and Google can guarantee more ad impressions, because they’re first and foremost an advert selling company.

    • donnachaidh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I may not be 100% right, as I haven’t looked at it in detail, but I think it’s even a bit more than that. Since the way that’s proven is by the browser vendor signing the request (I assume with an HTTP header or something), you could also verify it’s from a specific vendor. So even if Mozilla says, yes, we’ll display your ads, a website could still lock down to Chrome. It would probably also significantly hamper new browsers, and browsers with a security/anti-ad focus, as they won’t be recognised by major websites that use the new protocol until they have market share, which they won’t get if they don’t have access to major websites.

        • donnachaidh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A) Maybe not you, maybe not me or anyone else here, but 99.99% of the rest of the world? And when the rest leave, is Mozilla really going to be able to justify maintaining a browser for those that remain? B) There might not be a website that would do it, but what about if practically all websites with any corporate backing did it?

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

            This is the fundamental point that so many techies fail to get. Saying “I’ll be fine, I’ll do X” is irrelevant. If nobody’s doing what you want to do, then eventually you won’t be able to do it either.

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

        I mean, they already do that by filtering out user agents. But this is certainly a step beyond.

        • fuzzzerd@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is why all browsers cross identify as other browsers. This would make it easier for sites to block and harder for browsers to work around.

    • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why can’t your browser lie and say “yes of course I’m displaying everything my fingers definitely aren’t crossed behind my back”?

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

        Because it’s not just going to say yes. It’s going to say yes, and then present an unique key that browser made for themselves. Other browsers might be able to spoof the key, but the proposal might have cryptographically expensive to even try.

      • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tfOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your device would return a signature to say that there’s no adblocking software on the device.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not true - you can still use ad blockers etc as normal.

      It’s also not a browser check, it’s a device check. It’s to check that the device can be trusted, like android itself hasn’t been tampered with.

      • rainh@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s equally stupid though… why shouldn’t I be able to tamper with my phone’s operating system? And how is it any of a website’s business if I do?

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can tamper all you want, but apps can already block access to devices that have been tampered with. This just gives that same power to websites.

          • rainh@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            … yes, and I am obviously very against giving that same power to websites lol. An app is built from the ground up as a UX created by the company, and that is what you are signing up for when you use an app. A browser should be a contained way of rendering data from some webserver according to a user’s preferences. Google is apparently trying to “app-ify” web protocols in order to give themselves more power over a user’s experience to the detriment of the user.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s literallly impossible for there to be a valid reason for a website to be entitled to know that under any circumstances.

          • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            True, but that’s within their own ecosystem. The internet is not owned by Google. But I guess a certain part of the majority wants it that way with how popular Chromium based browsers are.

      • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How could it not be a browser check if the website relies on the browser to be a middle man? The WebDRM that was pushed by a terrorist organization W3C, currently requires per-browser licensing.

        Per wikipedia:

        EME has been highly controversial because it places a necessarily proprietary, closed decryption component which requires per-browser licensing fees into what might otherwise be an entirely open and free software ecosystem.