And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.

  • Karza
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes Google said it’s a non goal so we can rest easy

    • eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Frankly, I don’t trust that the end result won’t hurt users. This kind of thing, allowing browser environments to be sent to websites, is ripe for abuse and is a slippery slope to a walled garden of “approved” browsers and devices.

      That being said, the post title is misleading, and that was my whole reason to comment. It frames the proposal as a direct and intentional attack on users ability to locally modify the web pages served to them. I wouldn’t have said anything if the post body made a reasonable attempt to objectively describe the proposal and explain why it would likely hurt users who install adblockers.