4 ms·

> Your browser becomes your personal privacy enforcer, and the law would require it to act on your behalf. Based on your one-time choice, it would be responsibl

> Your browser becomes your personal privacy enforcer, and the law would require it to act on your behalf. Based on your one-time choice, it would be responsible for allowing or declining cookies from every site you visit. If a website tries to use a cookie with an unclear or undeclared purpose? Browsers are something the end-user installs. Inserting the government into that doesn't make sense. This sounds like the idea is for the site to add extra metadata that's not there now, about what each cookie does. Which would still involve mandating site owners to do things. . Also, both private mode and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... are a thing already, without government meddling.

asplake 1y ago
Except that the provider of the most popular browser is also an advertising agency. A conflict there, surely?
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  So that would mean that most users must not actually care that much, then?
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    The provider of the "alternative" browser is also completely supported by the same advertising company, and since this arrangement has begun has shown itself completely uninterested in solutions like this. If anything, it tries to make control over cookies, localstorage, or javascript harder, and to demonize people who would dare to care about such a thing.
  - wackget 1y ago
    Let's be honest: most users don't know what they don't know. Even tech-literate people have no real idea of the enormity and scale of tracking which goes on across the web. And the tech giants love it that way.
crazygringo 1y ago
> Inserting the government into that doesn't make sense. On what basis? What difference is there between regulating website code and browser code? How a website functions and how a browser functions?
- msla 1y ago
  Because a browser is not always a commercial product, whereas a website often is. I should not need to follow a ridiculous law to give away some software.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    That distinction doesn't make sense. You could just as easily say websites are not always commercials products, whereas browsers often are made by for-profit corporations. You seem to be anti-regulation period.
    - janwl 1y ago
      People throw “Anti-regulation” around in HN as if it were a slur.
    - msla 1y ago
      A website is non-commercial when it isn't doing commerce. A browser doesn't have that simple test. It can be used to do anything. Therefore, the commercial website made by someone who chose to make it commercial needs to be regulated, as opposed to trying to regulate every browser. (As an aside, you likely don't know how many browsers exist.)
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        > A website is non-commercial when it isn't doing commerce. So Chrome is non-commercial? Edge is non-commercial? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Those browsers exist specifically for the commercial advantage they bring the corporations that create them. And please don't make asides that make assumptions about my knowledge. You might want to take a look at the HN guidelines.

asplake 1y ago

Except that the provider of the most popular browser is also an advertising agency. A conflict there, surely?

tbrownaw 1y ago
So that would mean that most users must not actually care that much, then?
- pessimizer 1y ago
  The provider of the "alternative" browser is also completely supported by the same advertising company, and since this arrangement has begun has shown itself completely uninterested in solutions like this. If anything, it tries to make control over cookies, localstorage, or javascript harder, and to demonize people who would dare to care about such a thing.
- wackget 1y ago
  Let's be honest: most users don't know what they don't know. Even tech-literate people have no real idea of the enormity and scale of tracking which goes on across the web. And the tech giants love it that way.

crazygringo 1y ago

> Inserting the government into that doesn't make sense. On what basis? What difference is there between regulating website code and browser code? How a website functions and how a browser functions?

msla 1y ago
Because a browser is not always a commercial product, whereas a website often is. I should not need to follow a ridiculous law to give away some software.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  That distinction doesn't make sense. You could just as easily say websites are not always commercials products, whereas browsers often are made by for-profit corporations. You seem to be anti-regulation period.
  - janwl 1y ago
    People throw “Anti-regulation” around in HN as if it were a slur.
  - msla 1y ago
    A website is non-commercial when it isn't doing commerce. A browser doesn't have that simple test. It can be used to do anything. Therefore, the commercial website made by someone who chose to make it commercial needs to be regulated, as opposed to trying to regulate every browser. (As an aside, you likely don't know how many browsers exist.)
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      > A website is non-commercial when it isn't doing commerce. So Chrome is non-commercial? Edge is non-commercial? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Those browsers exist specifically for the commercial advantage they bring the corporations that create them. And please don't make asides that make assumptions about my knowledge. You might want to take a look at the HN guidelines.