this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2334 points (99.3% liked)

Privacy

32120 readers
541 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LaggyKar@programming.dev 85 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

It doesn't seem to be targeting ad-blockers in particular (or other page customizing extensions), although that may result eventually. What it does do is let webpages restrict what web browsers and operating systems you are allowed to use, just like how SafetyNet on Android lets apps restrict you to using an OS signed by Google. That could end up with web pages forcing you to use a web browser and OS the big players like Google, Microsoft and Apple, blocking any less restrictive or less used competors like Firefox and Linux, thus creating a cryptographically enforced oligopoly. And even if they signed e.g. Firefox, it would only be certain builds of it. That would make it impossible to make a truly open-source browser that can access pages using this API. Quite concerning.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

It doesn’t seem to be targeting ad-blockers in particular (or other page customizing extensions), although that may result eventually.

That's just because they've learned not to say the quiet part out loud.

[–] Beliriel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean that's arguably worse, no?

[–] LaggyKar@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago
[–] fouc@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It literally lists countering ad-blocking as a use case.

Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

[–] LaggyKar@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That section isn't about ad-blockers, it's about botnet ad fraud; using bots to inflate ad view counts to make advertisers pay more.

[–] fouc@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately what's going to happen in reality is that any non-standard ad consumption (including non consumption) will be flagged as fraudulent. "We cannot verify your activity, please disable your add-ons to continue".

[–] LaggyKar@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Possibly, it's quite nebulous at this point

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this goes way beyond adblockers.

This is straight up 3E for web browsers - it's a short road from this to forcing everyone onto apps and chromium, and good luck explaining to a politician why this is a big deal.

This year is going to show up in a lot of history books... Assuming we still make history books when all this is over