• Raltoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They try to present it as “detecting abuse”, but it’s literally just “allow servers to block non-verified browers”(in other words google blocking access to their services for non-chrome users(the people proposing it work for google)).

    And as always these types of asshats always shit all over anyone using accessbility tools(or don’t even consider them in the first place, which amounts to the same thing).

      • jumperalex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        why did you waste your time asking that question when you already knew the answer?

        It’s always the profits!!!

        • Brahm1nmam@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I get it costs money to develop accessibility, but you can’t rip off a blind man if he can’t navigate your sight. I truly don’t get it.

          Edit: site, not sight

          • Eranziel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’ve simply run the numbers and decided it would cost more to support the blind man’s access than they could get from plundering the blind man.

      • jumperalex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        pretty much yes to keys and hashes. Just think HDCP and HDMI

        That said, I imagine it’ll have to be easier to hack software that isn’t embedded in hardware. but it’s also easier to issue revocation lists when you don’t have to worry about bricking everyone’s hardware. So I have no idea which way that balance tilts.