🆘

  • @_dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    839 months ago

    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…

    • @germanatlas
      link
      379 months ago

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

      • GoldELox
        link
        69 months ago

        imagine defending advertisements and the largest corps in the world…

    • @dolle@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      99 months ago

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