• trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s irrelevant. This proposal only gets bad if enough browsers support it that site owners can tell everybody who doesn’t use it to leave. At that point the open web is dead.

    • FlapKap@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is also what the article is arguing. As soon as a majority of users are subject to this the websites can discriminate. If only safari does this it’s still bad but not very bad

  • Anticorp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with them forcing content upon you which you have explicitly chosen to exclude. Additionally , this will likely be the final nail in the coffin for small webmasters. You won’t be able to spin up a little passion project anymore and have it visible by the rest of the world unless you understand the complex requirements for implementing the new system. Mandatory SSL already hurt a bunch of small businesses and bloggers, and that was relatively easy to solve if you threw more money at the problem. This would kill the open internet.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t even need money, LetsEncrypt works fine for SSL on smaller sites

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shouldn’t touch small sites. This is a protocol that allows sites to verify the browser, if a site doesn’t want to verify the browser it just doesn’t. Most normal sites won’t.