• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s not true - you can still use ad blockers etc as normal.

    It’s also not a browser check, it’s a device check. It’s to check that the device can be trusted, like android itself hasn’t been tampered with.

    • rainh@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s equally stupid though… why shouldn’t I be able to tamper with my phone’s operating system? And how is it any of a website’s business if I do?

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can tamper all you want, but apps can already block access to devices that have been tampered with. This just gives that same power to websites.

        • rainh@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          … yes, and I am obviously very against giving that same power to websites lol. An app is built from the ground up as a UX created by the company, and that is what you are signing up for when you use an app. A browser should be a contained way of rendering data from some webserver according to a user’s preferences. Google is apparently trying to “app-ify” web protocols in order to give themselves more power over a user’s experience to the detriment of the user.

    • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s literallly impossible for there to be a valid reason for a website to be entitled to know that under any circumstances.

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

          True, but that’s within their own ecosystem. The internet is not owned by Google. But I guess a certain part of the majority wants it that way with how popular Chromium based browsers are.

    • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How could it not be a browser check if the website relies on the browser to be a middle man? The WebDRM that was pushed by a terrorist organization W3C, currently requires per-browser licensing.

      Per wikipedia:

      EME has been highly controversial because it places a necessarily proprietary, closed decryption component which requires per-browser licensing fees into what might otherwise be an entirely open and free software ecosystem.