this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
397 points (98.8% liked)

Privacy

32457 readers
602 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
 

also on r/privacy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, so this third party would rat you out for having an adblocker and websites would be like, “naahhhhh”

I say no to this.

[–] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This goes way beyond that. According to the article, this would be the equivalent of getting identified to prove you're a real person with an unmodified web browser (presumably Chromium-based) to enable a fully-controlled browsing experience.

The closest analogy I can come up with is it's like creating a HOA for web content. Keep your web browsing experience "gated" so it is "untainted" by extensions that block ads and/or manipulate web pages. Google is trying to make it sound like it's holding your hand and keeping you safe, but in reality is trying to put handcuffs on your web browser.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It sounds that it actually is safer, that people for example can expect there are no malicious mitm things spying on their browsing or changing/injecting things that are malicious (like these scams lately where they ask to take over your computer and change numbers via dev tools because people don't know what the fuck they're looking at), but at the same time it would make things very cookie cutter. Ads everywhere, no way of changing things with client-side scripts, no looking at source code because why would you can't change it anyway, no alternative frontends for popular websites with horrendous tracking, etc.

Of course, that is for the websites that take advantage of this technology. I can't predict how many websites would implement this, but I hope deep down there are still websites that would not go this route and remain free to visit and browse. That will be my world wide web. I know where the web came from, taking a step back to a smaller sub-web of sorts doesn't really scare me, it might even bring back some of that forgotten glory of what the web once was. Smaller, less content, but with heart.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whatever websites choose to use this bullshit are websites I will no longer use. Soon someone will come up with a new internet and it will be like stepping back in time and I will welcome it.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can see my bank using this technology and I've refused to install banking apps on my phone, so that would have me in a tough spot.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I thought about it and I'll bank elsewhere. There will be credit unions that at least act like they give a shit about you.

Absolutely not safer. Ad blocks are a safety feature as much as they are a convenience feature.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

They problem is that this means that the web is controlled exclusively by google.