285
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Sure, they're against it, but if it gets implemented by Chrome and by many major websites, they won't have a choice but to implement it as well. Otherwise, their browser just won't work and people will have to use Chromium browsers or nothing at all.

[-] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 47 points 1 year ago

Honestly, they could have good grounds for an antitrust lawsuit if this API comes to pass and everyone uses Google attestation servers. It's gardenwalling the browser space just like Microsoft was.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Honestly, they could have good grounds for an antitrust lawsuit

And what was the last successful antitrust suit? It wasn't Microsoft. They just dragged out the trial until they had a favorable administration settle with them.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That would be a great anti trust suit if the US actually enforced anti trust laws, but they don't. If you're not already a dominant semi-monopoly, you can buy and do whatever honestly.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Then don't use Google. I'm slowly but surely working towards degoogling myself. Not there quite yet, but I'm working on it.

https://dispostable.com

^ Free anonymous email, for the B/S that asks for an email when they got no business with one.

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

The whole point is that non-Chromium browsers might lose functionality on a significant portion of major websites. Imagine if Amazon, Netflix, and Youtube suddenly stopped working in Firefox. How many Firefox users would tolerate that?

You are not limited to using one browser at a time. Use firefox as much as you please. You can use google if you must.

[-] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Sure, because the average user won't think his Firefox to be broken and just switch to chrome altogether. Chrome has no issue with that site after all. Once enough pages have it even most technically inclined people will probably not want to constantly juggle between browsers, just to use their banking site or whatever.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Your recommendation isn't wrong, but it's a mistake to think problems like this can be solved with a mere boycott. This absolutely requires consumer protection legislation.

[-] pglpm@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Funny, note that that website uses DRM content. I have DRM disabled on Firefox and when I visit that site I get two DRM warnings.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I noticed that too after I posted that comment. Must be a recent change. ☹️

[-] Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

Mozilla has been bullied exactly this way in the past into implementing DRM measures I believe.

[-] Maiznieks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I already use ff and if there's a site that requires drm to work, i don't care for that site. They need visitors not the other way around.

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
285 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59169 readers
2917 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS