this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1062 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60047 readers
2777 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How long until the majority of the Internet is inaccessible to non-Chromium browsers because the pages "don't support them"?
Honestly the way the internet is going do you need access to the majority of the internet? I feel like its pretty dead as it is now already.
Lemmy will still work because we mostly use Firefox, and i bet the same will hold true for many others.
Basically the moment mainstream internet becomes google only you will see nerds build new websites specifiably to cater to the non google crowd and i trust random internet nerds a hack of a lot more than a monopoly corporation.
BRING IT ON GOOGLE!, YOU CAN INITIATE THE PUSH TO CREATE A NEW BETTER INTERNET. ^Create demand for freedom trough your suppressive enforments^
Oh yeah nothing bad could ever happen from effectively removing an entire section of the population from certain parts of the Internet completely.
I can't imagine that ever going badly.
That's already the case. Facebook etc have been walled gardens (or prisons if you prefer) for decade and a half now.
If it don't work on Firefox I won't use it. There are better FOSS options anyways
Sure as long as it's not my bank or my employer or the gov official website for accessing my taxes...
"WebUSB is a JavaScript application programming interface specification for securely providing access to USB devices from web applications"
Holy Hannah, NO!!!!
Might as well allow a website to direct write to your hard drive unprompted again.
Does noone see how BAD this stuff is?
Stop creating attack vectors with glowing neon signs on them.
Except it's a very good thing for 2FA USB keys which prevent people from gaining access unless they have physical access to the key. Also useful for USB gamepads etc
Web engines are nearly OSs at this point. It's aready possible to flash a phone ROM in two clicks with a webpage. Most apps are also already rendered in browser engines anyway, that includes things like steam. The APIs might sound evil until your favorite FOSS project uses them to make your life better.
Unfortunately, if Mozilla refuses to implement stuff like PWAs or advanced APIs it's locked out of that side of innovation both good and bad.
That's precisely the kind of access that a web browser should NEVER, EVER have.
If you think 2 stage download keylogger apps getting into app stores is bad, wait until it can be done with a banner ad. Or by viewing a comment on a post.
You have to specifically permit it on a per site basis, it's not like a website has those permissions by default. If a banner ad or forum post could enable that permission then they'd be able to access your camera as well as a plethora of other permissions?
I don't see any difference between downloading code to run in a web browser vs downloading and running ADB. In fact, running software in a web browser is more sandboxed and with more fine tuned permissions.
I would close my bank account and such to a different bank. It takes literally 5 minutes to open one online.
And yes, I would not work for a company that doesn't support Firefox
I would also keep pestering support of the government website, that one I will have to give to you
I don't think that's going to be the case. People will find workarounds. The whole point of these alternative browsers is to use the web in whatever way the developers think their user base wants to use it. If the web is inaccessible to non-chromium browsers then people will spoof their browser to the site to look like a chromium browser.
If we get to the point where the corporatocracy can force us into a limited set of compliant browsers then the web as we know it has ended. I don’t think they’ll go that far unless they decide to go whole hog. That level of control will likely look to wipe out any useful plugins like ad-blockers or other privacy features. I didn’t want to go down the slippery slope argument, but that’s pretty much what will happen if they go that direction.
But most of those only give you a few bits of data. Like if there's only one technique that succeeded, you might have the same fingerprint as everyone with your exact phone with the rest randomized
Then I guess people will use the web less and less.
I remember the "works best on IE" warnings of old, looks like we might be heading back there.
This is getting more common. Whatever dev accepted that when sizing the story should hang their head in shame. “No, you don’t size for a poor solution, you size for a good solution and let the PMs chip at the things they understand, keeping some things sacrosanct”.
For this reason, we must still take a stand against this stuff.
They do some now, but user agent switcher gets me to all of those with no problem.
It is not that simple. These are cat and mouse games. Whack a mole. Whatever you'd like to say.
If I can't access a site with firefox, i won't deal with online. I'll call them and waste an employee's time, or send payment in the mail. I'm not using chrome or an app and i don't care.