if they outright forced us to stop day one thered be outrage, so they instead ease us in. first a popup, then a timed popup, slowly leading to their actual goal but without the outrage

  • Sha'ul@lemmy.ca
    0·
    1 year ago

    And how much power does Google have to force that on websites that reject it and users who use Lbrewolf or IceCat?

    • ᗪIᐯEᖇGEᑎTᕼᗩᖇᗰOᑎIᑕᔕ@sopuli.xyz
      1·
      1 year ago

      All the power that an advertisement network can buy. Especially youtube since it’s owned by google. And advertisers will be happy to have a way of forcing site visitors to run ads/malware or else they will not get served the content.
      It’s similar to certain bank apps refusing to function on Android devices with an unlocked bootloader: you want the convenience of an e-banking application (/ad-driven corporate website)? – Your device (/web browser) “security” must be verified by the “authority” who actually owns your operating system, else you won’t. Everyone* will “be loving” their secure devices, because they “just work”.

      *who is a potential customer buyer and therefore relevant

      Google is trying to use their dominance to actually own the www. The comment/issue section of the github site of the proposal is quite enlightening, if you have the time … especially their reactions on the general dismissal and condemnation of the proposal as unethical.