🆘

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    88·
    1 year ago

    f i r e f o x

    we should have been using it for decades now.

    but then simply switching browsers won’t really do in the long run, next step is hopefully banding together to eat the rich…

      • Astaroth@lemm.ee
        5·
        1 year ago

        I used to use Firefox before Chrome, and it was working great. Then at some point Firefox just started sucking and so I ended up switching to Chrome.

        Around the same time I stopped using hotmail in favor of gmail as well

         

        Now, probably almost 20 years later I’m back at Firefox

        I haven’t escaped gmail yet though

      • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year ago

        I used chrome for a long time. It’s just the browser I downloaded when I was a kid, and realized there were options other than Internet Explorer. I used it for years, just because I couldn’t be arsed to switch.

        It was this Web API shit that made me finally bite the bullet and switch. Honestly, after some tinkering and researching plugins I barely notice the change. Should’ve switched years ago.

    • i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      17·
      1 year ago

      I started using Firefox after Opera changed to being Chromium-based about 10 years ago. (RIP) Fortunately Firefox is a lot better than it used to be so it’s not so bad.

      Oddly enough I got a lot of unprompted flack from my colleagues about using non-Chrome browsers. It boggles my mind how much people are really attached to Chrome.

    • Pepeyes@sopuli.xyzOP
      69·
      1 year ago

      It is part of serie “Day 622 of poorly drawn stuff until YouTube brings back the dislike count or a better video platform appears”, they are mostly about internet things.

      • LiveLM@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Oh poor devil is gonna be drawing daily comics for the rest of his life

    • tasho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      58·
      1 year ago

      comics are an incredible storyboarding-esque medium that you can use to draw and talk about anything. it doesn’t even need to be limited to a 4-panel gag. I love comics

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      79·
      1 year 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…

    • kitedemon@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      59·
      1 year ago

      From my understanding, it allows a website to check if you’re running a Chromium browser, and block your access to the site or to features of the site if you aren’t

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        40·
        1 year ago

        Well then I am a chromium browser. At least as long you need to think that.

        What technology they are using I can’t fake on a Firefox?

        • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
          41·
          1 year ago

          It’s the API itself, it’s a little more complicated than just checking if you have a chromium browser. What it’s looking for is special tokens generated by google within chromium browsers. Google is selling this idea as a way to help verify identity of the end user and thus block bots. That’s concerning, because it suggests that google will have some verification method likely involving ID and generate a unique token with that info associated with it. This is a real concern for web privacy for like a million reasons, obviously, and ideally should not be adopted by anyone. If other tech gatekeepers adopt it (and they would love to) it will block giant swathes of the internet from people refusing to use the tech and further googles monopoly over general consumer browser use. Now, could the token be fudged? Possibly. But it will take time to figure out.

          • Bizarroland@kbin.social
            46·
            1 year ago

            And what’s really fucking infuriating about this is that it honestly has nothing to do with making the internet a better place to be or improving the safety of the internet or protecting children or anything like that.

            It’s about ads.

            They’re literally trying to fuck the entire internet in broad daylight so that they have a way to guarantee to their advertisers that they are targeting you with the ads the advertisers want you to see.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            5·
            1 year ago

            🤔 So what happens if you look up porn on a chromium browser and then try to run for office years later? Couldn’t they in principle blackmail whoever they wanted?

          • aluminiumsandworm@kbin.social
            14·
            1 year ago

            god that’ll make it impossible to do a bunch of frontend work for anything but their browser. which is another reason they want to do it, i’m sure

            • unalivejoy@lemm.eeEnglish
              5·
              1 year ago

              They deprecated it as in it always is set to the same value regardless of the chrome version.

        • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          … Oh. Sorry friend, they’re using TEE, trusted execution environment, aka the place where a key is put by the manufacturer and not available to the user without an exploit or taking apart the processor. Faking it isn’t going to be like changing the user agent

          Fun how companies came up with a way to run code on our hardware at home without our ability to modify it

            • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              Yeah… That’s about where I’m at. I figure I’ll keep an old computer set up to deal with things I have to use, but the corporate Internet is really starting to suck. When Reddit went down, I started the long and painful process of finding a better way… It’s going to involve quite a lot of custom solutions, but at least it starts off crappy and quickly improves instead of the opposite

        • atocci@kbin.social
          23·
          1 year ago

          I can already picture Google down-ranking search results for any website that doesn’t implement it because obviously “if they aren’t using the integrity API we can’t guarantee they’re safe for our users”

            • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
              14·
              1 year ago

              This is the process Cory Doctorow termed “enshittification.” Services start out by prioritizing functionality for the users, even running at a loss to do so. This is one reason why new companies have a massive burn rate compared to their income.

              The second step is they stop prioritizing users and start prioritizing “partners.” Those could be news sources, sellers, whatever. User functionality is compromised to optimize the “partner” experience.

              Finally, they start to fuck over partners too, in order to shovel as much money as possible into the company’s accounts. Facebook did it with news sites - especially video. Twitter is doing a speed run on this. Google is accused of being well on its way with search, and I have no idea about their other services.

              So, yes, Google may fuck up search just like Facebook fucked up their feed and Twitter is fucking up absolutely everything.

              • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
                6·
                1 year ago

                Google may fuck up search

                They’ve already fucked it up. I’ve moved on to ddg, which is something I thought I would ever do five years ago. If the ddg integration with bing goes south, then I’ll start looking into things like kagi.

            • atocci@kbin.social
              6·
              1 year ago

              To people who know what’s going on sure, but for most users, if its not on the first page of Google it doesn’t exist.

        • takeda
          17·
          1 year ago

          This goes with other changes they did to chromium. Google claims it is to prevent bots, but it really is a crackdown on ads blocking and any other “tampering” with their websites.

          If you care about keeping web free, you should stop using chrome and its derivatives and switch to Firefox. They are believing that Firefox user base is low and websites can simply exclude FF and force it to implement it as well.

        • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
          14·
          1 year ago

          The ‘average’ website wouldn’t but many of the social giants are desperately looking for a way to limit bot use. So Google gives them what they want and simultaneously gets to be the most reliable advertiser, ensuring impressions are viewed by not just a human but the right human.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            3·
            1 year ago

            How does this limit bot use? Is there something anti bot about chromium? Or does the api do more beyond checking for chromium compatible browsers

            • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
              6·
              1 year ago

              Because websites will check if you have a Web Integrity token being sent along by the browser and if it cannot find one registrations and login will be closed to your instance.

              Edit: And to clarify, you will not get that token unless you verify your identity within the associated google account. Hence why only Chromium browsers will support this. But it isn’t about the browser. It’s about the token.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                2·
                1 year ago

                But that token is just provided by the browser, isnt it? Can bots not run within an instance of a chromium browser? I dont get how this stops a bot account.

                • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah sorry I just clarified. Read my comment higher up in the thread for more details. The token is generated upon verification of user identity.

      • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
        15·
        1 year ago

        Bing for enterprise is already blocking browsers that aren’t Edge. Clicking “Edge” from the list of browser identities in Firefox seems to go around the block.

      • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 year ago

        It’s not about whether it’s a chromium browser or not. It’s about whether a browser is “trusted” and installed from a “trusted” source, like the windows store… Basically gatekeeping. Still, Firefox and any browser could still be approved.

        • Kühe sind toll@feddit.de
          13·
          1 year ago

          This would be an insane damage to the Linux community since there are many different ways to install programms(including browsers).

          • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely! I would wager a guess that something like this would require support on a package manager level, meaning that the biggest like Ubuntu or what not could have access to a functioning “trusted” browser. But good luck on a niche distro, or if you want to compile it yourself, or if you want to use certain extensions or…

          • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            According to Google - probably source code that can’t block ads and that is known to not block trackers… basically.

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    25·
    1 year ago

    Well to be fair, if google wanted to kill Firefox they could just stop paying Mozilla for using their search engine as the default. That’s basically the only thing that’s keeping them afloat.

    • BluesF@feddit.uk
      20·
      1 year ago

      They don’t want to “kill Firefox” though. They want people to use Google products in all forms - using Google through Firefox is better than scattering users to other browsers without a Google default. By forcing users to Chromium they don’t just kill Firefox, they direct users TO ever more Google products in the process.

  • Aiden@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    7·
    1 year ago

    Can’t lie, although not a solution to the bad part of WEI, pi-hole is looking really really nice…

    • magmaus3
      2·
      1 year ago

      that’s an search engine, not a web browser

      • outer_spec@lemmy.studio
        2·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I thought this comic was referring to Google the search engine for some reason

        Like if you tried to google something on Firefox it would destroy Firefox or something

        I may be stupid

  • Bappity@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    are they seriously still going ahead with this shit? Web Integrity API is the worst idea in existence

    • finestnothing@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      If the web integrity API goes live and I can’t use some sites because of it, it will be very nice to have a very clear filter on what websites are complete garbage for using it. Vivat librewolf + VPN!

        • Serinus@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          Probably Netflix, YouTube, and streaming apps first. I’d say banks, but banks are slow. Games won’t take long. If there’s not enough blowback it’ll spread to every website that uses captchas today.

          • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            I feel like if a bank is going to use it, there needs to be a clear financial reason to. Because if someone can’t access their account, they might lose their shit and leave for the first bank whose website works.