Part 1: > They cannot prevent websites from requiring X to access their sites. They can by lowering amount of signals site gets - so to make it impossible to

Part 1: > They cannot prevent websites from requiring X to access their sites. They can by lowering amount of signals site gets - so to make it impossible to guess what client is running. > There is no workable solution to force someone to accept traffic against their wishes. Not give someone way to disallow traffic based on OS or Browser. > If they only accept requests with some custom header, that's their prerogative. And it is users prerogative to not give you any custom header which they do not want - or if you force them to do so give you not real one. >Many features of browsers have been (ab)used for "nefarious" purposes. Should we get rid of those? Yes we should. Or at least we should do risk assesment on those to check if they should be part of standards and Browsers. We should do more risk assessment of any new feature and standard. >Anything Google does is automatically bad. If they start championing privacy and less pro-corpo bs - I will applaud them for that. > This whole thing feels like since Trump is not president in the US any more, certain people need a boogeyman and are using Google in his place. Don't bring your (USA) bs politics to this - if anything it is your fault to not make proper regulations on your market. > even though there is no proof If you understand even tiny bit of tech - you will see the definite proof - the proposal. > "and stated goals which are the opposite." PR is irrelevant.