Can we not completely ruin the web please? Ads are both a blight and a security risk.
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
75 points (92.1% liked)
Technology
59346 readers
7390 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yea Apple did do that, but Apple is NOT Google, and Apple does not have a monopoly on the internet as a whole.
They also do not have an extremely strong motive to strip any and all privacy and ad blocking from users.
So I wouldn’t say it’s the same in this context. Google is far more dangerous with their implementation.
Yeah the article said pretty much exactly that? With statistics even
Im cheering for apple?? Its a wierd time. This is why we have anti trust laws. Good to see it working. Edit: ignore this comment I was half asleep.
?
I'm not sure I follow you. The article only mentions that Apple launched a similar DRM last year and that's about it, nothing to do with anti-trust laws.
I read this headline when I was half asleep at 4am and somehow understood it to mean Apple was firing back at Google. But no... completely the opposite. Goddammit.
Interesting article, I for sure didn’t noticed it.
I think that the tech behind this is quite interesting and useful, that is not the issue. The issue is, in my opinion, that the party that attests you are trusted is a firm like Apple, Google, or Microsoft. With all the antitrust implications of that.
Now we as a society need to make a decision, do we want to use this tech to make certain parts of the web more safe? And do we want to place that responsibility in the hands of firms, or should we want a government to pick up that responsibility?
Food for thought this is.
The main difference from what I understand is that with Apple's system, if you did not have a token, you could still access the content. This is the opposite of what Google proposes which is to only serve the content to devices with the token, hence the backlash. It's play along or no internet for you.
Once such a token exists, escalation to requiring it is inevitable. Therefore, Apple is no less nefarious then Google here.
Google's proposal also has sites serve content to clients without the attestation, or at least so they claim in the repo (thus the proposal to make the check deliberately fail sometimes, so websites won't rely on it. Of course, there is no guarantee it will stay that way, Google could change that policy whenever they want.
The main difference is really in Google's dominance on the web. Sites can't start requiring Safari, but they can start requiring Chrome or Safari.
view more: next ›