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.
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 💔
Prentiss Riddle 🎛