• Integrate777@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    22 hours ago

    What if websites decide that chrome users earn much more ad revenue and start forcing users to switch with those “This website only supports Chrome” error messages? What if this practice gets popular? I’m sure there are ways to get around it, but the average users who bothered switching to Firefox at all, will just conclude that anything except chrome has a bad browsing experience.

    • gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      i never understood how those messages work? like how would using firefox ruin your website? or how they even detect firefox in the first place lmfao

      • Rolling Resistance@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Browsers have user-agent identifiers, websites can see what browser and what version you use.

        They are mostly used to run browser-dependent code to avoid some things breaking in some browsers.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They can in theory make tricks showing that you are using an ad blocker or a specific browser. Even if you set Chrome’s user agent in Firefox.

        I personally wouldn’t make such effort to use such websites then.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It’s all fun and games till they check for web USB support. They don’t need to actually use web USB but it’s a telltale sign that you’re not on Chrome.

          • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            A plugin could very easily have Firefox claim to support WebUSB, but return no devices or junk devices. Some of the anti-fingerprinting add-ons already do, iirc.

            • linearchaos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              You get my point though, all they need to do is start supporting a feature that’s not easy to spoof.

              The real defense against this is for people to refuse to use Chrome. It’s not the tail that wags the dog, Make The Firefox user base so big the developers can’t ignore it. Basically IE all over again

              • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                I agree with your conclusion, but as long as they’re offering data up for download to your machine, they really can’t control how you access it or what application you use for it. That doesn’t mean it’ll be easy, but even if it requires reverse-engineering some website DRM, somebody’s going to do it. And if Chromium remains FOSS, it won’t even be terribly difficult.

                Remember, they tried to defeat ad blockers on YouTube, and they gave up because it wasn’t worth it. uBO was updating to block their attempts within hours. They’ve tested inserting the ads in the video stream, but that’s probably also not going to last for long.

                They’re trying to assert an ownership over the Web; and yes, the best way to defeat it is to build a strong and united resistance against it. But even if we don’t, there are ways to quietly refuse to comply.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Then apple would whip out their giant throbbing cock and smack them with it because they want people using safari.