🆘

    • kitedemon@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my understanding, it allows a website to check if you’re running a Chromium browser, and block your access to the site or to features of the site if you aren’t

      • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bing for enterprise is already blocking browsers that aren’t Edge. Clicking “Edge” from the list of browser identities in Firefox seems to go around the block.

        • atocci@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          43
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can already picture Google down-ranking search results for any website that doesn’t implement it because obviously “if they aren’t using the integrity API we can’t guarantee they’re safe for our users”

            • SatanicNotMessianic
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is the process Cory Doctorow termed “enshittification.” Services start out by prioritizing functionality for the users, even running at a loss to do so. This is one reason why new companies have a massive burn rate compared to their income.

              The second step is they stop prioritizing users and start prioritizing “partners.” Those could be news sources, sellers, whatever. User functionality is compromised to optimize the “partner” experience.

              Finally, they start to fuck over partners too, in order to shovel as much money as possible into the company’s accounts. Facebook did it with news sites - especially video. Twitter is doing a speed run on this. Google is accused of being well on its way with search, and I have no idea about their other services.

              So, yes, Google may fuck up search just like Facebook fucked up their feed and Twitter is fucking up absolutely everything.

              • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Google may fuck up search

                They’ve already fucked it up. I’ve moved on to ddg, which is something I thought I would ever do five years ago. If the ddg integration with bing goes south, then I’ll start looking into things like kagi.

            • atocci@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              To people who know what’s going on sure, but for most users, if its not on the first page of Google it doesn’t exist.

        • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ‘average’ website wouldn’t but many of the social giants are desperately looking for a way to limit bot use. So Google gives them what they want and simultaneously gets to be the most reliable advertiser, ensuring impressions are viewed by not just a human but the right human.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            How does this limit bot use? Is there something anti bot about chromium? Or does the api do more beyond checking for chromium compatible browsers

            • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because websites will check if you have a Web Integrity token being sent along by the browser and if it cannot find one registrations and login will be closed to your instance.

              Edit: And to clarify, you will not get that token unless you verify your identity within the associated google account. Hence why only Chromium browsers will support this. But it isn’t about the browser. It’s about the token.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                But that token is just provided by the browser, isnt it? Can bots not run within an instance of a chromium browser? I dont get how this stops a bot account.

                • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah sorry I just clarified. Read my comment higher up in the thread for more details. The token is generated upon verification of user identity.

        • takeda@szmer.info
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This goes with other changes they did to chromium. Google claims it is to prevent bots, but it really is a crackdown on ads blocking and any other “tampering” with their websites.

          If you care about keeping web free, you should stop using chrome and its derivatives and switch to Firefox. They are believing that Firefox user base is low and websites can simply exclude FF and force it to implement it as well.

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          browsers can currently report to be anything. which is why Google is trying to stop it.

      • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not about whether it’s a chromium browser or not. It’s about whether a browser is “trusted” and installed from a “trusted” source, like the windows store… Basically gatekeeping. Still, Firefox and any browser could still be approved.

        • Kühe sind toll@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This would be an insane damage to the Linux community since there are many different ways to install programms(including browsers).

          • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely! I would wager a guess that something like this would require support on a package manager level, meaning that the biggest like Ubuntu or what not could have access to a functioning “trusted” browser. But good luck on a niche distro, or if you want to compile it yourself, or if you want to use certain extensions or…

          • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            According to Google - probably source code that can’t block ads and that is known to not block trackers… basically.

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not just chromium in and of itself. It’s that it would be a browser that’s unmodifiable by the user, so no unapproved extensions, no ad blockers, etc.

      It’s a way for google to tell its ad buyers that “hey, we can 100% guarantee the end user is seeing your ads if they’re using this browser”. And then all of the corporate websites cater only to that browser, or give a different user experience for all other browsers.

      Personally, I find this problematic for several reasons:

      1. I wouldn’t be in control of my browser and how it executes arbitrary code on my machine

      2. The system creates second class citizens on the internet

      3. It cedes control of the open internet to corporations, like google

      4. Privacy; I don’t give a shit what google says about pseudonymous and group identities, researchers have found problems after problems after problems…