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.
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…
:(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We need to hope some governing body steps in and slaps Google with antitrust, because this is a pretty clear abuse of monopoly
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… :(
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.
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.
The EU may be our only reasonable hope.
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.
Governmental regulators need to be involved. But I don’t have my hopes up.
the problem is that this is a malignant feature that can only be used for evil
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.
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.