this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
119 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
58061 readers
31 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The thought here is that, a website could be programmed to, for example, only be accessible to users of chrome (or even an android device), correct? Other than google itself, why would any website want to do such a thing? Is the idea that google is trying to bring users to chrome, by blocking google services on other browsers? That could be really transformative for the web, because then you'd have microsoft doing the same thing with edge, apple doing the same thing with safari, other companies like fb or whatever launching their own bespoke 'browsers' to access their services. Will users actually put up with the degree of fragmentation that this move might bring? Won't it just push users to the 'old internet' where you can simply go to a website and interact with it?
Sorry, I'm kind of talking out loud here trying to wrap my head around this. I see people grousing about DRM and ads, and I'm struggling to connect all the dots.
I can't speak for how other people browse, but when I come across an article with a paywall, I tend to say "eh, it wasn't that important anyway" and leave. Or if it really is important, I'll search for the title and try to find the information on a site without a paywall.
If there ends up being a "browser wall", I'll certainly do the same thing. No article/web app is so important or unique that it's worth quitting my preferred browser (Firefox) and switching to something I like less.
But what's scary to me, as a Firefox user, is that Chrome & Safari are so extremely dominant. If companies are forced to choose between supporting Chrome (60% share), Safari (20% share), or Firefox (3% share), it's clear that Firefox users will run out of sites to use pretty quickly.
Right, if this sort of browser wall thing happens (which, the doctrine of enshittification seems to dictate that it probably will), and it can't be spoofed or worked around. Alright, I'm seeing the issues here. Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. This is a huge deal, if it goes in this sort of direction.
Who's seeing a pattern here?
YouTube and other platforms increasing ads Meta being Meta Twitter becoming X Reddit fucking API and the platform itself Now, Google coming up with their policies
Are we entering an era where we are silently being forced into becoming customers to these big monopolies, and being under constant surveillance?
Like what the fuck do they want, they already control every fucking thing, what more they want still? What they try to commodify still?
Sounds like an open and shut anti-trust case if any governments care to pursue it.
Web devs can be pretty lazy and only want to support Chrome anyway. If Chrome is the only browser offering certain features ("proof" that user is human, potentially getting rid of adblockers altogether, etc), that's a good excuse to finally just stop supporting Firefox and Safari.
Didn't Microsoft try and do this with Silverlight back in the day?