Can someone give me an easy to understand example of what they are proposing? Assume that I don’t allow them to install any software/tool that helps them track me/my device.

I saw this comment and found it helpful but its still not clear to me

At its core, it establishes software components called “attesters” that decide whether your device and/or browser is “trustworthy” enough - as defined by the website you are trying to visit. Websites can enforce which “attesters” users must accept, simply by denying everybody access who refuses to bow down to this regime; or who uses attesters that are deemed “inappropriate”; or who is on a platform that does not provide any attesters the website finds “acceptable”.

In short: it is specifically designed to destroy the open web by denying you the right to use whatever browser you want to use, on whatever operating system. It is next-level “DRM”, introduced by affiliates of a company that already has monopolized the browser market. And the creators of this “proposal” absolutely know what they are attempting here.

Haha

This in a world where people have barely figured out that TLS1.0 isn’t really TLS at all.

A complex product the consumer doesn’t
understand and doesn’t help is doomed to failure.

Imagine an ad driven site reducing its visitor count so it can sell its ads for less to fewer people?

while people with no adblocker at all are rejected, resulting in irate Facebook posts, people with trusted adblockers continue on as before.

This is great! HAHAHA.

I imagine the user experience would be just that “our site only works with Chrome”.

And then Google could close the loop with requiring such requirements for Google Ads integration.