3 ms·
As I understand it, this would mean I cannot customize my reading experience anymore. As I could not run my own code on websites. For example, this is how I rea
by mg 3y ago
As I understand it, this would mean I cannot customize my reading experience anymore. As I could not run my own code on websites. For example, this is how I read HN:
https://twitter.com/marekgibney/status/1551483561621979136 https://twitter.com/marekgibney/status/1551483561621979136
I can't imagine reading HN and having to manually figure out which posts I have not yet seen.
I do the same for many other aspects of my browsing experience. Change the font size, colors, remove static elements. I control it all via bookmarklets. Having all that taken away would be pretty terrible.
- tylerhou 3y agoThat's not what the proposal would do -- you could still run your own JavaScript on websites. In fact, this is explicitly stated as a non-goal: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#non-goals https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... > Non-goals: > > - Enforce or interfere with browser functionality, > including plugins and extensions.
- mg 3y agoHow would that work then? How can they achieve the goals stated in the introduction like ensuring that users who play a game don't cheat? How would this technology prevent one kind of automation but not the other? The site also gives an example that "this API will show that a user is operating a web client on a secure Android device". That would mean the site can lock me out, as I am not using Android. So I can't use any of my bookmarklets in my Firefox browser on my Debian machine anymore.
- h4x0rr 3y agoI bet they'll leave it out initially to avoid outcry, then allow websites to disable extensions when it's widespread