• Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or it will help develop a new open web that doesn’t include these sort of things.

    I have been using Firefox since forever so this sort of stuff doesn’t bother me.

    I’m happy to avoid websites that require it.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Will you be happy when your doctor/bank/government’s website requires it? When health or law obligates you to comply?

      This is much, much darker than just some replaceable entertainment sites being off-limits.

      • TheOakTree@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are a lot of test proctoring services that only work on chrome that are required by schools/universities too. I hate the services, but I don’t want to fail my exams, and these online tests/proctoring services are getting more and more common post-pandemic-isolation.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ah yes, proctoring malware, because human teachers are just too expensive (but legions of highly-paid administrative staff, mysteriously enough, aren’t too expensive).

          At least you can confine the malware in a virtual machine right now, but that won’t be the case for much longer. I’m glad I don’t have any children…

    • fsniper@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am using Firefox too. However I also consume lots and lots of general purpose websites which in time probably become not consumable if you are not compliant. Which in turn either render FF not usable, or adopt the unfortunate standards.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Even if it does implement WEI, it still won’t pass validation. Each website will have its own list of approved software configurations, and you’ll be lucky if your bank/doctor/government even allows you to use a Mac, let alone your favorite distro’s builds of Firefox and Linux.

        • fsniper@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( “content binding” to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.

          Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.

          So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s even worse. Websites will trust only Microsoft, Apple, and Google. Those of us who value our security enough to install Linux will be left out in the cold. We’ll be such a small minority that no one ever cares enough to give up on attestation. The pressure will cause our numbers to dwindle to nothing as people flee to proprietary platforms in order to avoid losing access to their bank/doctor/government. All hail the eternal compulsory corporate triopoly.

            • fsniper@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              For now spec calls “holdbacks”, which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can’t be used as a whitelist. Surely this “holdbacks” will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.