💾 Archived View for station.martinrue.com › ivanodin › 3aef102a53aa4be796e07dea941f4b3a captured on 2024-08-18 at 22:52:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Never seen such a big BS ever https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/
1 year ago · 👍 tm85, ruby_witch, devyl, syntheist
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/
Ah yes, the famous "don't be evil", sadly retired. I think it was replaced with "respect the user, respect the opportunity, respect each other" ... was that the one you meant? · 1 year ago
I agree that the article is kinda clickbait. But still, no way after reading the proposal I would describe it as useful in any way. We all know how is Google modus operandis. · 1 year ago
The proposal exactly describes why and how it would reduce fingerprinting, and why it should not--if it works as intended--affect control of the web.
So the concerns are valid but it's not super helpful to report them as "Google wants to do X" when the proposal exactly says the opposite.
I mean, you can choose not to believe the proposal and just make up what the actual intent is and then report on that ... but ... if I want to read fiction I prefer it in book form ;) · 1 year ago
None of the "concerns" seems valid to me at least. Just another way for them to figerprint devices and keep control of the web. · 1 year ago
The proposal is worth a look, but the article is clickbait trash ... they even specifically say that the proposal addresses the concerns but they're ignoring it for a better headline. Because LOL clickbait.
Sigh.
There are a couple of loooong threads on this one over at Bubble, BTW :) · 1 year ago
I should express my self better indeed. I mean the proposal, of couse :) · 1 year ago
the proposal or the article? · 1 year ago