this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
689 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

34838 readers
37 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lem0n@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pardon my ignorance but Can someone explain what google is trying to do?

[–] mainframegremlin@programming.dev 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Pardon formatting, on mobile. Its a form of device authentication. Apple does this with safari already BTW, and it can reduce things like captcha because the authentication is done on the backend when a request hits a server. While still an issue in concept with Apple doing it, chromium browsers are a much larger market share. In layman's terms this is basically the company saying, hey you are attempting to visit this site, we need to verify the device (or browser, or add on configuration, or no ad blocker, etc) is 'authentic'. Which of course is nebulous. It can be whatever the entity in charge of attestation wants it to be.

This sets the precedent that whomever is controlling verification, can deny whomever they see fit. I'm running GrapheneOS on my phone currently, they could deny for that. Or, if you are blocking ads. Maybe you're not sharing specific information about your device, and they want to harvest that. Too bad, comply or you're 'not allowed to do x or y'.

This is the gist. The web should be able to be accessed by anybody. It isn't for companies to own nor should it be built that way. Web2 is a corporate hellscape.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I suspect "authentic" will mean "pays a license fee to Google." In this respect it will work like other forms of DRM, and it will have the same effect of excluding new and smaller players from the market. Except in this case the market is the whole of the web.

Yeah, definitely. Some form of extortion because ultimately that's what will happen either way. I mean, that's really the whole point of being the party that chooses what is authentic or not (and, what the definition of that word even means in this context). Monetary, data, whatever. Gotta keep the bottom line increasing for shareholders.

[–] mainframegremlin@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, definitely. Some form of extortion because ultimately that's what it will be either way. I mean, that's really the whole point of being the party that chooses what is authentic or not (and, what the definition of that word even means in this context). Monetary, data, whatever. Gotta keep the bottom line increasing for shareholders.

[–] Johem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily. With some forms od tracking being curbed, just being sent the who accesses which webpage on what device when (the bare minimum for attestation) has lots of value. And google won't stop at the bare minimum of data grabbing, of course.

[–] xradeon@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

No, there are no fees at all. Authentic just means approved device state, which will be defined by the website you go to I believe. So youtube might required many different things in order to be "authentic" like no ad blockers, genuine browser, non-rooted phone, etc., whereas bank-xyz may just check for one thing, like a genuine browser. Also, websites have to enable this on their side, so its not going to be used by default on all websites. The whole thing is crap though, even if only a few websites enable this, it could have huge impacts.

[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From my limited understanding as a common pleb, they are inserting DRM into Chromium browsers to prevent ad-blockers.

[–] Lem0n@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Internet with no ad-blockers is like a nightmare

[–] fuser@quex.cc 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, it is a nightmare. The insane volume of ads and clickbait injected into web pages is killing the internet as an information source. Most of the searchable stuff is unusable. Which explains why ChatGPT was so enthusiastically embraced - it's really just synthesizing content into a readable form that doesn't require navigating around a jungle of animated gifs and flashing ads. That's also I think why Lemmy and Mastodon are so refreshing to use, and hopefully will stay that way - although money seems to find a way to ruin everything. Lemmy right now feels a lot like the internet used to be before the big money came along and ruined it with advertising and platform lock-ins.

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@fuser @Lem0n, the only AI I most use and which is really useful for me is Andisearch.
https://andisearch.com

[–] fuser@quex.cc 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://andisearch.com looks like it might be a better option - thank you so much for posting. I'm mostly using duck-duck-go which is tolerable but by this point we should have come up with a more useful way to index relevant information. Google would rather we see ads than any relevant content, which wasn't the case when they first launched google in the late 1990s. Google was refreshing at the time because of its cleaner interface than yahoo and uncluttered results, amusingly enough - it's a far cry from what it once was.

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@fuser, Andi certainly is a fresh wind, it was the first search engine with AI which appears, before Google, Bing and the others. Great work of two very nice and friendly devs, Angie Hoover and Jed White, with an open ear to the user in their Discord channel for suggestions, feature request, bug report (well, it's still in developement) or simple chat.

[–] fuser@quex.cc 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, thanks again for the info - I'm trying it now and the results seem excellent, it took me to wikiwand, which I'd never used but it's a front end for wikipedia - it's quite nice. I've learned so much about alternative FOSS and great ad-free content by reading and posting here. I was never a great fan of reddit - liked to scroll but hardly ever posted there - I thought RPAN was the coolest thing they did - but Lemmy is great for conversation, despite the relatively small user base - I'm grateful that reddit's nonsense drove so many helpful people here.

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@fuser, the fediverse has nothing to do with monolithic social networks, controlled by large multinationals. It doesn't matter if you use an instance of Lemmy, Friendica, Diaspora, or Mastodon. etc., are really of the people and independent of large corporations and linkable with each other. Here in Mastodon I see posts of all these in my Timeline and I suppose you too, like the one where I am.

[–] fuser@quex.cc 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't notice that you were posting from Mastodon as I'm on Lemmy and your posts appear here just like any other Lemmy user - but the @fuser at the start of your messages is probably the tell, I think Mastodon defaults the username you're replying to, whereas Lemmy doesn't. It's great that we can use different applications without some corporate gatekeeper capturing everybody's personal info at the integration point to hawk to an advertising company.

[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Living the dream.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, it is useful for other purposes, but the cost to users is likely to be huge, with ad blocking being one of them. It probably also prevents other things even outside your browser because there's no point in securing a browser running in an untrusted environment. IIRC there is/was an issue running Netflix on certain Android devices and rooted devices after a similar feature was added to Android.

[–] seang96@spgrn.com 3 points 1 year ago

This would also hurt users that need accessibility extensions so they can properly browse websites that don't have good accessibility features.