🆘

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
83 points

It’s not just chromium in and of itself. It’s that it would be a browser that’s unmodifiable by the user, so no unapproved extensions, no ad blockers, etc.

It’s a way for google to tell its ad buyers that “hey, we can 100% guarantee the end user is seeing your ads if they’re using this browser”. And then all of the corporate websites cater only to that browser, or give a different user experience for all other browsers.

Personally, I find this problematic for several reasons:

  1. I wouldn’t be in control of my browser and how it executes arbitrary code on my machine

  2. The system creates second class citizens on the internet

  3. It cedes control of the open internet to corporations, like google

  4. Privacy; I don’t give a shit what google says about pseudonymous and group identities, researchers have found problems after problems after problems…

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Also the attestations have to be signed by the underlying OS, so probably this would not work on Linux either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Imagine being forced to read ads when looking at a newspaper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

imagine defending advertisements and the largest corps in the world…

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

You know, I can’t wait for the EU to tear Googles ass open until an elephant can walk through it. DMA my beloved

permalink
report
parent
reply

They already did so with META and won. And are currently doing so to YouTube.

EU is the internets lifesaver

permalink
report
parent
reply