![]() ![]() Since 2011 all they have done is continuously stripped out every useful power user feature in a bid to turn into a shitty copy of Chrome the last straw was gutting their powerful XUL/XPCOM extension system in favor of Chrome's far limited web extensions because muh security (and since then there's been more, not less cross browser malware). You're describing the old Firefox before they became Google's controlled opposition. The downside is once you use a tactic like this then it's not just Google that wouldn't trust anything they didn't make themselves. You can force Google to barricade themselves in until it's impossible to reach them, and have them do it so fast that updating systems for developers and users would be too much of a pain to constantly keep up with. Google wouldn't be able to trust anything they didn't make themselves. ![]() You could even make cookie bombs, where you have two cookies, and when one expires before the other it triggers the surviving poisoned cookie to ruin Chrome's functionality by poisoning the browser agent. If somebody puts a latent trigger into a Javascript library that's widely used like Node.js that makes Chromium and only Chromium break then that would start a cascade effect of Chromium locking itself up more and more until it's impossible to use. This might be one of the few times where targeted malware could be beneficial if it destroys Google's services and makes them too much of a risk to use. Restrictions in choice happen because people don't oppose the narrowing enough to make the corporations lose money. And the rules were set by Google, so it's in your best interest to break them by actively harming Google. The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.Ī defeatist attitude like this certainly predicts the future. The most they did was FLoC was deprecate it and re-release it under a different name. They did it with FLoC, which most people were opposed to. start using it, they've effectively cornered other engines into implementing it. ![]() It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts how do we protest this? Google will just strong-arm their implementation through Chromium and, when banks, Netflix & co. I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. All the authors of the proposal are from Google. The person who wrote the proposal is from Google. > who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices ![]() The vicious irony: the very tech they want to use to protect them is what will be used to protect the status quo from them! The entire premise of monetizing with ads is eventually either self-defeating or the problem itself.) (BTW, Brave is in the same boat: they are also an ad company-despite building ad blocking stuff themselves-and their product managers routinely discuss and even quote Brendan Eich talking about this same kind of "run the browser inside of trusted computing" as their long-term solution for preventing people blocking their ads. The result: there is now effectively one dominating web browser run by an ad company who nigh unto controls the spec for the web itself and who is finally putting its foot down to decide that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices or to prove that we are using some locked-down component of our otherwise unlocked device to see anyone's content, and they get to frame it as fighting for the user in the spec draft as users have a "need" to prove their authenticity to websites to get their free stuff. This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempts to use this stuff to do copy protection) and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browser as possible. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |