A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Why do people have a problem with this? It explicitly says browser extensions, like ad blockers, will still work. It says cross site tracking won’t be allowed. It all sounds pretty good.
It sounds like most are not liking it because of some potential future abuses rather than what it actually is?
Maybe somebody can do a better job of boiling this down than I can.
Basically, right now, if you ask for something on the internet, it gets served to you. Sure there are lots of server side protections that may require an account to log in to access things or what have you, but still you can at least request something from a server and get some sort of response in return.
What this does is force attestation through a third party. I can ask for something from a server and the server turns to the attester and goes, "Hey, should I give this guy what he's asking for?" and the attester can say "No" for whatever reasons it might. Or worse yet, I can get the attestation but the server can then decide based in turn that it doesn't like me having that attestation and I get nothing.
You can make arguments that this would be good and useful, but it's so easy to see how this could go sideways and nobody with any sense should be taking Google or any of these large corporations at their word.
From my understanding, there's no reason whatsoever to do this besides censorship, for better and for worse. There's a possibility good, and I'm sure the good would happen, but there's an even greater possibility it would be bad for users which would surely happen.
Sorry, yes, still trying to wrap my head around it. It's one of those things where there is quite obviously no direct benefit for the user. The company is trying to sell it as improving their content, moderation, security, etc. which may have indirect, knock-on effects for the end user but whether that would even be true or if it would be perceptible to your average person is MUCH more questionable.
It's the same kind of thing when you see people defending exclusivity on consoles. I mean sure, it helps prop up your favorite company/developer in hopes that the market benefit may someday come back around and help them to produce more content/games that you like, but people seriously need to start looking out after their own self interests first and corporations be damned. They earn money by providing actual value, don't ever argue against yourself.
It will stop bots/scrapers/etc dead in their tracks seems to be the main reason.
I just had to change my domain name because Google wouldn't stop blocking my personal server webpage for being a "phishing" website, there was no way it could be interpreted in that way at all and it didn't matter, my personal server apps were basically blocked on 80% of browsers.
Can someone explain to me how this is different to the trust system used by SSL Certificates?
I think that the main difference is that with SSL you only encrypt the data, and then you can modify at will(as in making changes to every page your browser renders - ad block, grease monkey like extensions etc. With DRM, you won't be able to modify the pages at all
I was meaning more in the "trusting Google" sense, how is this different to trusting VeriSign?
This is only my opinion, but basically you cannot trust no one. Having that said, certificate providers make their money by ensuring you will get the page from the server you asked for, and also for the encryption. Ignoring the certificate is possible, since it is the browser's choice. My point is, SSL providers have a lot to lose by exploiting the certificates for malicious intents(such as modifying the data, or changing to a different host etc) while the DRM of google is by design meant to allow us less freedom with how we use the web.
So i think that you can choose who is less trust worthy by figuring out what they will gain
Alright, I'm kinda slow today, so tell me if I got it right: We, the users, will be "kindly asked" to get one thingamabob signature/identifier of "integrity", so websites "know" whether we're good or bad guys?
Ugh. DRM. I freaking hate DRM. I "buy" a book from Amazon and it's all DRMed. I like the Kindle app so I keep buying there. But when I can I buy physical books at a LBS