3 ms·
> assume positive intent This rule applies to discourse, not perspectives. I also wouldn't call many of these concerns "fantasies," because anyone with a basic
by ryukoposting 3y ago
> assume positive intent
This rule applies to discourse, not perspectives. I also wouldn't call many of these concerns "fantasies," because anyone with a basic understanding of public-key cryptography can tell you exactly how this technology, even its most basic form, could be used to:
- Create an absolute monopoly on browsers.
- Give the holder of the browser monopoly the power to control who can/can't crawl the web.
- Give the holder of the browser monopoly the power to control what OS you use to access the web.
and so much more that it's head-spinning.
Is OP's title clickbaity? Yes. Are the concerns brought up by commenters totally legitimate? Yes.
- px43 3y ago> Create an absolute monopoly on browsers. Your premise is broken. How is this even possible in an open source ecosystem? Chrome was built to be forked, and there are several healthy forks that are thriving. There is zero chance of there being a browser monopoly any time soon. Basically every proprietary browser is now dead.
- ryukoposting 3y agoWhether or not the browser is open-source has no impact on this issue. The monopoly would not exist because Google/Apple/whoever are the only people allowed to make browsers. Google would simply have the power to make all of its services (search, docs, etc) totally unusable on any browser that isn't a version of Chrome compiled and distributed by them, thus making all other browsers useless to the vast majority of the population. Because analytics data is money, other companies would have financial incentive to follow suit. By the way, Chrome contains proprietary code. Chrome and Chromium are not identical.