• spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have limited understanding of the technical side of this issue, but based on this comment, this sounds like a brilliant move by Google - Don’t like the rules of the game, change the game…

    Edit: for clarification, this comment was very tongue in cheek - I don’t support Google, this was just an acknowledgement of a smart business play.

    • xeekei@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I have issues with the rules of “the game”, the current rules are better than the changes that Google are proposing, but since they are infinitely more powerful than me, I can only hope whatever body (W3C?) does not make it an official standard. As long as it’s just an extra thing that Chrome/Chromium does, there’s still hope for Google to get into legal trouble.

      • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fingers crossed that you’re right. Definitely don’t want to see them repositioning into an (even more) advantageous policy position. I imagine that a standards body such as the one you mentioned would be fairly careful about adopting anything proposed by a company without significant caution. At least that’s how it works with some international standards agencies haha

    • deejay4am@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need to stop this capitalist brainrot. It’s not a smart business move; a smart business move would be one where everyone wins. This is a lazy and evil move designed for pure extraction of value and coercion of compliance.

      Live the way we want you to (and we take 30% off the top!)

      • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        `I mean, yes, agreed. But this is literally how businesses operate - stay ahead of governments, or change the game so govts are onboard (as regulation regularly trails behind business). A genuinely smart business move would obviously be preferable, but the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl. It should be, but gestures wildly at everything

        Edit: exchanged “always” for “regularly”

        • deejay4am@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl

          I mean, yes, agreed. But why does anyone think that that’s ok?

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      an acknowledgement of a smart business play.

      When politicians do it, it’s “corruption.” When normal people do it, it’s “crime.” When capitalist parasites do it, it’s “smart business.”