#Google is trying to #kill the #OpenWeb.
Using the proposed "Web Environment Integrity" means websites can select on which devices (browsers) they wish to be displayed, and can refuse service to other devices. It binds client side software to a website, creating a silo'd app.
https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md
This penalizes platforms on which the preferred client side software is not available.
@interpeer So if it wish not to be displayed on Chrome then it won't be displayed on other Chrome based browsers too? Also I don’t see a reason why would a website doesn’t wanna show up in a specific browser!!
@tasinone I do, if that specific browser would not display ads.
@wonka @interpeer there is already Vivaldi and Brave browser who don’t display ads. Also Pulse and Floorp both Firefox based browser who use uBlock by default and block all the ads. Use them.
@tasinone But with the proposal in question, a website might choose not to display on those browsers (because they don't show ads). Or on any browser they simply don't know or otherwise don't care about.
Which is what we're criticizing here.
@wonka @interpeer I understand what you are trying to say but a website can simply use adblocker director. Even already a lot of website using it.
@tasinone That could be worked around. Digital Restrictions Management of the proposed kind not so much.
@tasinone @interpeer
If I had to guess, I'd say it's about adblocking. There's an arms race between adblockers and adblocker detection. If someone's using a open source browser that can look like it isn't blocking ads but doesn't show them to the user, that race is over.
So forcing people to only use known and approved browsers avoids that, and then a year later the list of known and approved browsers are suddenly the ones with no adblocking capability at all.
@petealexharris @tasinone That's also my guess, but the method is something else entirely.