7 ms·

It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome,

It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers. Make browsing the internet possible only on macOS, Windows, Android or iOS (no custom Android distributions, definitely no LineageOS or GrapheneOS or whatever). No competition allowed in Operating Systems, especially no open source operating systems. Make crawling the internet possible only to Google. No private crawling and no competing search engines. Let me know if I've missed anything...

hef19898 3y ago
If successful, that would make the anti-trust suites against MS seem like childs play.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  There won't be an anti-trust suit. The implicit deal will be we will prevent "misinformation" (favor news sources you support and censor anything you request with our algorithm) and you will allow us to monopolize the internet.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Other countries can do anti-trust as well.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      What I am getting at is this is fundamentally a pro-government proposal. Governments like the open web even less than Google.
  - awesomeMilou 3y ago
    That's far fetched. Mozilla still breathes and they have enough cash to start an anti-trust lawsuit in Europe.
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      Cash that comes from Google. The EFF might start an anti-trust lawsuit, but I don't see Mozilla doing anything of the sort.
      - nequo 3y ago
        Time to start donating to Mozilla.
        paulmd 3y ago
        Maybe if I donate to American Petroleum Institute I can help tilt their agenda in a more green direction. Maybe if I donate to NRA-ILA I can tilt their agenda towards gun control. you’re not going to tilt a think tank against its master, and the point of Mozilla is controlled opposition so google can point out they’re not quite a monopoly.
        nequo 3y ago
        What do you propose as an alternative? Safari?
        wizzwizz4 3y ago
        There are many, many, many web browsers that are not corporate-controlled. Some of my favourites lately are the Argonaut Constellation [0] – mostly because of the interesting technical decisions going in the development (particularly the CSS and the Haskell), but also because Rhapsode is already better than eSpeakNG + AT-SPI2 + Firefox. There's also the venerable lynx, and elinks (which I reluctantly admit is better than lynx, even if I don't use it much), and Dillo+ [1] (a fork / continuation of Dillo that supports Gopher and Gemini). And could I forget NetSurf, with its graph-y history navigation? And of course, Ladybird, [2] probably the best-funded of the lot. These are just the ones I've heard of. There are surely dozens more you'd be interested in, and thousands of little hobby projects. Why not try making your own web browser? [0]: https://argonaut-constellation.org/ https://argonaut-constellation.org/ [1]: https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus [2]: https://ladybird.dev/ https://ladybird.dev/
  - lsp_trw 3y ago
    [dead]
- bogwog 3y ago
  > “We (Microsoft) are in a very unique position to be able to go spend Sony out of business,” said Booty in a December 2019 email, referencing spending $2 billion or $3 billion in 2020 to avoid competitors getting ahead in content at a later date. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/26/23774547/microsoft-sony-xbox-internal-emails-ftc-out-of-business https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/26/23774547/microsoft-sony-x... The FTC lost that case. I think at this point, if a big tech executive avoids doing something due to the threat of antitrust lawsuits, they're just incompetent.
mozball 3y ago
iirc remote attestation is reliant on hardware attestation, which means these websites will only run on authorized DRM-enforcing hardware and architectures. Only Intel, AMD, Qualcomm and the like. No open-source firmwares, architectures or hardware.
- detourdog 3y ago
  It's important to remember they are only commercial efforts. If you can value something other than money it doesn't matter what the corporate web is doing compared to human ingenuity and the internet. Let them waste their time and money write their specs.
  - mozball 3y ago
    As an example, Can you recommend a good tech/hacker video channel that is available somewhere else other than Youtube?
    - detourdog 3y ago
      That is why I call for federated publishing tools. Believe it or not I plan on launching such a channel and it will be self-hosted in the 90's meaning of the term. They only way the channel will grow an audience is if it is passed by word of mouth. The amount of effort that goes in to playing advertising metric games of YouTube is ridiculous to me. Anyone that says well people have to get paid I say maybe. Real creators create and don't need the like, subscribe, patreon, mantra. Most of the gunsmithing sights on YouTube are moving towards this idea. I don't believe in the discovery myth so many talk about as essential. It is only essential if you need inorganic growth. I would say it's an emerging trend and that the more they tighten their grip the more creators will slip through their fingers.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      Arent everyday astronaught, practical engineering and tom Scott available on their own websites?
detourdog 3y ago
Definitely seems like we will have a commercial internet run to satisfy corporations and an adjunct internet that is federated and open for free thinkers. I think focusing on federated publishing tools is the best route around these ideas. Remember the corporations will need to be more disruptive than a nuclear war to break the internet. We can always route around them ourselves.
heipei 3y ago
As someone who has built a business on browsing certain website using Chrome in headless mode this proposal worries me, and it has the potential to destroy large commercial segments of other similar companies.
phh 3y ago
Make browsing the internet possible only on CPUs allowed by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So no RISC-V just yet, and even when RISC-V will be supported by them: No competition allowed in CPU. Make browsing the internet possible only on SoCs allowed by Apple, Microsoft, Google. No competition allowed in SoC. [0] Make browsing the internet possible only on form factors approved by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So no calculator with a web browser [1]. No competition allowed in form factor. Make browsing the internet possible only on UX approved by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So backtracking 10 years ago, when Android made documents-oriented web browser (= each tab appears just like a standalone app in recent apps), that would have been abuse of that position. No competition allowed in UX. [2] PS: I come from Android OS world, all those examples already apply to Google/Android. [0] Well this one will depend on whether their Web Environment Integrity implementation will enforce full secure boot approved by them. Considering how it went for Android, I'd say it will, but can't say for sure. [1] Yes you can find calculators running Android (but can't run Google/Android so no Chrome). Amongst a lot of other weird Android devices. You can find walking robots, toothbrushes, urinals running Android. [2] You'll probably find a better example. Arguably it's the same as "competition allowed in browsers", but that was an OS-wide change, but saying it's "OS" IMO largely reduces it.
- Delphiza 3y ago
  Make it impossible to browse the Internet from urinals. Needs to be added to the list :)
- tomjen3 3y ago
  You don't need this is stop innovations in CPUs, any new CPU will be for non-computers or for servers - for the same reason that Linux is not yet king of the desktops, which is that people need their computers to run old software.
  - account42 3y ago
    Apple managed to switch to ARM without too much fuss.
  - jabbany 3y ago
hooby 3y ago
Seems more than just a bit ironic to block the web from being used on the very same open source that it actually runs on...
epolanski 3y ago
How would they achieve that?
- detourdog 3y ago
  They won't. Their corporate overlords are looking at their empire of dirt and trying to figure out a new newness.
ezoe 3y ago
So, it's Secure Boot to the web.
azangru 3y ago
> Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers Forgive my stupidity, but isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this api? Currently, websites can already do user agent sniffing, or hide their content behind a login wall; but we are not complaining that this is the end of the web. Or are we?
- Terretta 3y ago
  > isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this? How many web sites still serve you http:// http:// instead of https:// https:// ? The transition was (is) entirely voluntary. Transition happened more slowly until browsers made the lack of https:// https:// look scary. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/01/20/communicating-the-dangers-of-non-secure-http/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/01/20/communicating-t...
  - azangru 3y ago
    It did help that everyone was in agreement that https is a good thing (TM) though. Browser vendors as well as web developers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mrtksn 3y ago
If that would be the case, then countries with bad relationship with the USA will end up having the real free internet because these tech services and products would be undesirable or inaccessible to them. They might risk political persecution for their online activities but so do people in the "West". The 3rd world will be forced to use homegrown solutions and there's a possibility that they might end up much more innovative when not everything is about advertisements.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
And of course you can also charge for access depending on client. There is not a single advantage for the user in the long run.

hef19898 3y ago

If successful, that would make the anti-trust suites against MS seem like childs play.

fallingknife 3y ago
There won't be an anti-trust suit. The implicit deal will be we will prevent "misinformation" (favor news sources you support and censor anything you request with our algorithm) and you will allow us to monopolize the internet.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Other countries can do anti-trust as well.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    What I am getting at is this is fundamentally a pro-government proposal. Governments like the open web even less than Google.
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  That's far fetched. Mozilla still breathes and they have enough cash to start an anti-trust lawsuit in Europe.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    Cash that comes from Google. The EFF might start an anti-trust lawsuit, but I don't see Mozilla doing anything of the sort.
    - nequo 3y ago
      Time to start donating to Mozilla.
      - paulmd 3y ago
        Maybe if I donate to American Petroleum Institute I can help tilt their agenda in a more green direction. Maybe if I donate to NRA-ILA I can tilt their agenda towards gun control. you’re not going to tilt a think tank against its master, and the point of Mozilla is controlled opposition so google can point out they’re not quite a monopoly.
        nequo 3y ago
        What do you propose as an alternative? Safari?
        wizzwizz4 3y ago
        There are many, many, many web browsers that are not corporate-controlled. Some of my favourites lately are the Argonaut Constellation [0] – mostly because of the interesting technical decisions going in the development (particularly the CSS and the Haskell), but also because Rhapsode is already better than eSpeakNG + AT-SPI2 + Firefox. There's also the venerable lynx, and elinks (which I reluctantly admit is better than lynx, even if I don't use it much), and Dillo+ [1] (a fork / continuation of Dillo that supports Gopher and Gemini). And could I forget NetSurf, with its graph-y history navigation? And of course, Ladybird, [2] probably the best-funded of the lot. These are just the ones I've heard of. There are surely dozens more you'd be interested in, and thousands of little hobby projects. Why not try making your own web browser? [0]: https://argonaut-constellation.org/ https://argonaut-constellation.org/ [1]: https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus [2]: https://ladybird.dev/ https://ladybird.dev/
- lsp_trw 3y ago
  [dead]
bogwog 3y ago
> “We (Microsoft) are in a very unique position to be able to go spend Sony out of business,” said Booty in a December 2019 email, referencing spending $2 billion or $3 billion in 2020 to avoid competitors getting ahead in content at a later date. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/26/23774547/microsoft-sony-xbox-internal-emails-ftc-out-of-business https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/26/23774547/microsoft-sony-x... The FTC lost that case. I think at this point, if a big tech executive avoids doing something due to the threat of antitrust lawsuits, they're just incompetent.

mozball 3y ago

iirc remote attestation is reliant on hardware attestation, which means these websites will only run on authorized DRM-enforcing hardware and architectures. Only Intel, AMD, Qualcomm and the like. No open-source firmwares, architectures or hardware.

detourdog 3y ago
It's important to remember they are only commercial efforts. If you can value something other than money it doesn't matter what the corporate web is doing compared to human ingenuity and the internet. Let them waste their time and money write their specs.
- mozball 3y ago
  As an example, Can you recommend a good tech/hacker video channel that is available somewhere else other than Youtube?
  - detourdog 3y ago
    That is why I call for federated publishing tools. Believe it or not I plan on launching such a channel and it will be self-hosted in the 90's meaning of the term. They only way the channel will grow an audience is if it is passed by word of mouth. The amount of effort that goes in to playing advertising metric games of YouTube is ridiculous to me. Anyone that says well people have to get paid I say maybe. Real creators create and don't need the like, subscribe, patreon, mantra. Most of the gunsmithing sights on YouTube are moving towards this idea. I don't believe in the discovery myth so many talk about as essential. It is only essential if you need inorganic growth. I would say it's an emerging trend and that the more they tighten their grip the more creators will slip through their fingers.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Arent everyday astronaught, practical engineering and tom Scott available on their own websites?

detourdog 3y ago

Definitely seems like we will have a commercial internet run to satisfy corporations and an adjunct internet that is federated and open for free thinkers. I think focusing on federated publishing tools is the best route around these ideas. Remember the corporations will need to be more disruptive than a nuclear war to break the internet. We can always route around them ourselves.

heipei 3y ago

As someone who has built a business on browsing certain website using Chrome in headless mode this proposal worries me, and it has the potential to destroy large commercial segments of other similar companies.

phh 3y ago

Make browsing the internet possible only on CPUs allowed by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So no RISC-V just yet, and even when RISC-V will be supported by them: No competition allowed in CPU. Make browsing the internet possible only on SoCs allowed by Apple, Microsoft, Google. No competition allowed in SoC. [0] Make browsing the internet possible only on form factors approved by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So no calculator with a web browser [1]. No competition allowed in form factor. Make browsing the internet possible only on UX approved by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So backtracking 10 years ago, when Android made documents-oriented web browser (= each tab appears just like a standalone app in recent apps), that would have been abuse of that position. No competition allowed in UX. [2] PS: I come from Android OS world, all those examples already apply to Google/Android. [0] Well this one will depend on whether their Web Environment Integrity implementation will enforce full secure boot approved by them. Considering how it went for Android, I'd say it will, but can't say for sure. [1] Yes you can find calculators running Android (but can't run Google/Android so no Chrome). Amongst a lot of other weird Android devices. You can find walking robots, toothbrushes, urinals running Android. [2] You'll probably find a better example. Arguably it's the same as "competition allowed in browsers", but that was an OS-wide change, but saying it's "OS" IMO largely reduces it.

Delphiza 3y ago
Make it impossible to browse the Internet from urinals. Needs to be added to the list :)
tomjen3 3y ago
You don't need this is stop innovations in CPUs, any new CPU will be for non-computers or for servers - for the same reason that Linux is not yet king of the desktops, which is that people need their computers to run old software.
- account42 3y ago
  Apple managed to switch to ARM without too much fuss.
- jabbany 3y ago

hooby 3y ago

Seems more than just a bit ironic to block the web from being used on the very same open source that it actually runs on...

epolanski 3y ago

How would they achieve that?

detourdog 3y ago
They won't. Their corporate overlords are looking at their empire of dirt and trying to figure out a new newness.

ezoe 3y ago

So, it's Secure Boot to the web.

azangru 3y ago

> Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers Forgive my stupidity, but isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this api? Currently, websites can already do user agent sniffing, or hide their content behind a login wall; but we are not complaining that this is the end of the web. Or are we?

Terretta 3y ago
> isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this? How many web sites still serve you http:// http:// instead of https:// https:// ? The transition was (is) entirely voluntary. Transition happened more slowly until browsers made the lack of https:// https:// look scary. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/01/20/communicating-the-dangers-of-non-secure-http/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/01/20/communicating-t...
- azangru 3y ago
  It did help that everyone was in agreement that https is a good thing (TM) though. Browser vendors as well as web developers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mrtksn 3y ago

If that would be the case, then countries with bad relationship with the USA will end up having the real free internet because these tech services and products would be undesirable or inaccessible to them. They might risk political persecution for their online activities but so do people in the "West". The 3rd world will be forced to use homegrown solutions and there's a possibility that they might end up much more innovative when not everything is about advertisements.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

And of course you can also charge for access depending on client. There is not a single advantage for the user in the long run.