cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2546109

Read why “Web Environment Integrity” is terrible, and why we must vocally oppose it now. Google’s latest maneuver, if we don’t act to stop it, threatens our freedom to explore the Internet with browsers of our choice.

  • yogsototh@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t see how this could be prevented.

    There are already many “small web” movements. With different proposals. Like gemini, sub-set of currently supported web standards (typically no-js, no-css, no POST, etc…)

    But the monetized web is doomed to reach a point were it will be controlled in such a way that you will not be able to block ads, not be able to hide your pseudonymous identity.

    I remember reading an article many years ago about the cat and mouse game between ads publishers and ad-blockers. The conclusion were that in the end, ads blocker will lose the final war. And with these kind of system we are closer and closer to reach it.

    I think we need to collectively find a way to have sub-nets. For example declare that our website conform to certain sub-net properties.

    • no-ads
    • privacy (no cookie/no js/no user-agent header/no canvas, no css)
    • etc…

    The small webs are different for everyone. It would be very nice if we could put an HTML header that would list which small webs pattern this page is compatible with. And have a browser that would adapt to your preferences and also a way to filter your small-web preferences in search engine.

    The closest to this we have today is probably gemini. But this a very small but friendly web. I am sure we could find other solutions to create an alternative “respecting his users” web.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would suggest sequestering G! To their own corner of the interwebs but it’s Google. They’re too big for that.

    Remind me: why do we allow behemoths like this to exist?

  • bedrooms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I support them, but the writing reads like a mad teenager wrote it… I can’t believe it’s from the FSF.

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    " it will be used by Google to deny access to their services unless you are using a browser that gels with their profit margin"

    Cool. So people using a different browser will move elsewhere. Maybe they’ll even stop youtube addiction. Cant’ really see a downside.

    “It is not far-fetched to imagine a future in which sites simply refuse to serve pages to users running free browsers or free operating systems.”

    Same here. Sites doing this wouldn’t probably worth to be looked at anyway.

    • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      lemm.ee was talking about using cloudflare (i can’t remember whether he went through with it), which will almost certainly implement this. lemmy.world already does. there is no good outcome from this going through where this only blocks google sites from firefox.

      even if there was, that still means you can’t open any gdrive links you find on the internet, use a youtube tutorial to fix something, use the play store to buy any apps (because if they integrate this into chrome, they will integrate it into the play store), etc.


      edit 2023-08-10:

      hey guess what engywuck, lemm.ee uses cloudflare now:

      image showing the cloudflare "edge ip restricted" page for lemm.ee

      good luck accessing lemm.ee from non-chromium if this goes through

      in fact view you probably won’t be able to view any embedded youtube videos at all. people would have to go back to hosting their own videos which would push hosting costs up, which would raise the barrier of entry to people making their own sites. which is something we want to encourage