Mocking Google for their totally-not-an-attempt-to-DRM-the-Web is the right thing to do.
Open issues on the proposal repo and let them know what you think.
Politely.
But, don't be fooled. Even if they take this back, it doesn't change how they think. This is their intention. They just failed to slip it by this time.
The answer is to take power away from Google. Stop using their stuff. Build alternatives. It's not easy, but it's the only way.
And mock them. That's always fun.
@chrisg wow, this is terrible.
Google surely does everything against the open web in the fake name of security.
@chrisg @Anachron
The follow-up is a bit annoying. Sometimes people will use legal language because there are legal problems with a proposal, in which case, yes, lawyers *should* be involved - and if one is planning on collecting a bunch of user data they should've been involved from the start anyway.
Re "we're all humans": yes, employees are people and "be nice" applies, but despite corporate personhood this does not apply to the companies they work for.
@bryn Lol, cowards, of course they did.
These people are detached from reality _on purpose_.
With a manifesto (https://handboek.petities.nl/dl/manifest/manifest-english.pdf) we urgently ask for a different policy in the Netherlands for the digital, online aspects of education. Please sign too! Dutch version (https://eerlijkdigitaalonderwijs.petities.nl)
ECOSYSTEMKEY FEATURESGET /E/OSNEED HELP /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled”, mobile ecosystem /e/OS is an open-source mobile operating system paired with carefully selected applications. They form a privacy-enabled internal system for your smartphone. And it’s not just claims: open-source means auditable privacy. /e/OS has received academic recognition from researchers at…
hey, i wanted to talk about the open internet, a topic i'm very passionate about and would love to see still exist in the future. i'm not the best at writing and don't have anywhere to publish any ...
@m Yeah, they locked them yesterday, soon after the big backlash started.
Because they are cowards.
@chrisg We lost this war the day we allowed big techs have so much power. We lost when we allowed Google to write "standards", we lost when we allowed Chrome to be the most used browser.
I'm very pessimistic about this because only floss community or people in our fedibubble complains about this but the rest of people don't give a shit about what happens and they are going to use chrome and Google's craps even if I tell those things.
I always speak to my friends but I'm just ignored.
@jrballesteros05 It's hard, but i don't think the war is lost. It always looks like that, but remember that the web existed before G and will exist after them.
And "most people" always don't care, about most things. Change happens nevertheless.
@chrisg I will be glad if I'm wrong, believe me. But sadly if most people keep using Chromium based browsers, even if they have no idea about that, Google will do whatever they want with the Internet.
The web existed before G and other techs but they've stolen like TV existed before big conglomerates and they have stolen too.
I see Gemini as breath even though I don't use it.
I hope we still have Web, alternatives to cloud before those companies finish to fuck up everything.
@chrisg they will get away with it like they always do because they own the browser ecosystem.
everyone criticized Manifest v3 and here we are.
they don't even follow the W3C web standards and just create their own stuff that other browsers have to either support it or have 70% of the web broken because they were designed for Chromium.
Is there a simple explainer somewhere?
@chrisg Thanks. That helps.
It doesn't quite address one of my questions: could the proposed technology be yet another tool for totalitarian states to control access to information?
If so, it seems to me that the fate of adblockers is a tiny concern in comparison and critics are ignoring bigger issues.
But maybe there are reasons why this proposal is immune to state actors, dunno.
@pzriddle It's another tool in the toolbox for platform control, so of course it can be used by oppressive regimes.
But i wouldn't put that as the first priority. Governments control the ISPs, and as we've seen repeatedly, they can do a fine job of controlling information flow without this tech.
The threat to the open web from commercial interests seems more urgent to me, in this case. Not the only threat, but the most prominent.
I'm sure that others know better than I do, but I'm under the impression that national firewalls are *somewhat* leaky - depending greatly on the specific country, lots of technical details, and how much the regime backs up the tech limits with intimidation.
But all of that said, I would think that adding additional chokepoints is a Bad Idea.
I care a lot more about information getting through in Iran / China / Russia / MAGA USA than whether somebody has to see an ad.
Chris Gioran 💔
Anachron 
emmatonkin
let name: &char = "Bryn";
eerlijkdigitaalonderwijs.nl
Wilfried Klaebe
Empiricism
zazaserty
Jay Peach
Martin Hamilton
Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘
GNU+Chucho 
Phil Thane ✅
Andreas K
Alex
Prentiss Riddle 🎛