4 ms·

> Google or any other Browser vendor do not have a say on how websites use or misuse features. Seriously? Would you give the kiddies sharp knives and loaded gu

> Google or any other Browser vendor do not have a say on how websites use or misuse features. Seriously? Would you give the kiddies sharp knives and loaded guns, and then be shocked when someone is injured? If we let this become available, we will all have to live with the consequences. We can see clearly what those consequences will be. Let's not be stupid.

cowl 3y ago
This overboard generalizations is what make me sure that everyone is just gut-reacting. Have you read the actual proposal (not an article about it)? In your knife-analogy, Google is producing sharp knifes for the cooks, not the children. the DRM crowd here is saying but what if the Cook uses the knife the attack the restaurant clients? Do you know of anyone seriously discussing that we should stop all production of knifes because someone might give one to a child? SO yes I agree, let's not be stupid.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  > the DRM crowd here is saying but what if the Cook uses the knife the attack the restaurant clients? Your analogy once again falls apart because in this hypothetical scenario, the cooks have a decade-long history of attacking the guests every single time they get a hold of a new knife. In which case, yes, these cooks shouldn't have access to knives anymore. Of course that's not very practical, so perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to work as cooks anymore - i.e. separate Chrome from the ad business at the regulatory level and use Firefox or other alternatives on a personal level.
- arlcode 3y ago
  Google is also the biggest ad vendor on the planet. They have every incentive to require websites running their ads to only allow ("google play" + other big players) verified software on their sites. They can a) prevent ad blockers and b) assure their customers that ads will be viewed by real humans. Not doing so once this is in place would be intentionally saying no to profit Why in the world would google care about anything else?

cowl 3y ago

This overboard generalizations is what make me sure that everyone is just gut-reacting. Have you read the actual proposal (not an article about it)? In your knife-analogy, Google is producing sharp knifes for the cooks, not the children. the DRM crowd here is saying but what if the Cook uses the knife the attack the restaurant clients? Do you know of anyone seriously discussing that we should stop all production of knifes because someone might give one to a child? SO yes I agree, let's not be stupid.

dns_snek 3y ago
> the DRM crowd here is saying but what if the Cook uses the knife the attack the restaurant clients? Your analogy once again falls apart because in this hypothetical scenario, the cooks have a decade-long history of attacking the guests every single time they get a hold of a new knife. In which case, yes, these cooks shouldn't have access to knives anymore. Of course that's not very practical, so perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to work as cooks anymore - i.e. separate Chrome from the ad business at the regulatory level and use Firefox or other alternatives on a personal level.
arlcode 3y ago
Google is also the biggest ad vendor on the planet. They have every incentive to require websites running their ads to only allow ("google play" + other big players) verified software on their sites. They can a) prevent ad blockers and b) assure their customers that ads will be viewed by real humans. Not doing so once this is in place would be intentionally saying no to profit Why in the world would google care about anything else?