c00cf174f95c50ab7ed8251239b0dfe4
Chrome is a Threat
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
LAST MONTH we wrote about Google's attack on the Open Web [1, 2], to use this term, "open", very loosely. The Web had already been attacked by DRM several years prior and Mozilla went along with it, as did the W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium. We then reposted the FSF's statement on this matter. The subject was brought up in the LibrePlanet mailing lists ("Speculations about WEI" and some replies) and lots of blogs, so at least we're seeing widespread backlash.
"Attestation" (as they call it) prevents modification of the source or use of modified source programs or perhaps even just compilation on one's own. It clearly violates the First Freedom, which says: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
"The Web had already been attacked by DRM several years prior and Mozilla went along with it, as did the W3C..."Chromium, however, is under the 3-Clause BSD license. Nothing wrong, eh? Nonetheless, the "attestation" violates software freedom even if it does not violate Chromium's license per se. The video above moreover explains that Chrome and other 'finished' browsers are proprietary software. So there's a bit of openwashing going on, not even counting the DRM.
To borrow the words of a reader, the latest iteration turns the Web browser into a VM for unsafe "web apps" outside the control or influence of the ostensible owner. One blogger compared the future of the Web to VNC. There were many others. At least in technical circles, including high-profile YouTube channels, this became a very big deal. It's doing a lot of harm to Google's reputation.
"Google engineers want to make using Free Software (near) impossible," one person told us, "starting with custom software."
"To borrow the words of a reader, the latest iteration turns the Web browser into a VM for unsafe "web apps" outside the control or influence of the ostensible owner.""Using a free browser is now more important than ever," one person wrote. To which MinceR responded with, "if only they existed for the "modern" web..."
"It's getting some attention," said another person, "but will there be action of the right kind and quantity to prevent and not just postpone the cancer? Are there any serious non-Google browsers? Is it even possible to make one, even setting aside the question of the JavaScript VM? Firefox, due to Baker, is a Google browser. Follow the money."
Consider the analysis published some years ago about the near impossibility of creating a browser from scratch any more. There are many comments about it in LWN and there's a more recent analysis, last updated 1.5 months ago. Google is moaning that it cannot make money with YouTube on the Web, so it is trying to change the Web (or Web browsers), not YouTube.
"Google owns the client side of the market," one reader asserts, as "between Chrome/Chromium and Android that's close enough to 100% not to matter" whether other browsers still work. "They also more or less own the protocol (HTTP/3) and that is an even more serious matter."
"Google is moaning that it cannot make money with YouTube on the Web, so it is trying to change the Web (or Web browsers), not YouTube.""With Chrome," the reader has since added, the YouTuber "Brodie is 100% correct, contacting legislators is the only possible mitigation at this point."
"HTTP/3 is a severe problem especially since it uses UDP so as to push the processing further up the stack into the client software. Also WEI seems to be a move further away from the web as a client-server architecture and deeper into misusing the Web browser as a shoddy, insecure VM to run inefficient, bloated "web apps" of unknown provenance."
"The WWW won't die, it will be killed outright by the likes of Microsoft and google The corpse won't go away to leave us in peace though, it will continue as a zombie which all will be forced to interact with using proprietary browsers on proprietary operating systems as prerequisites for dealing with governments and banks and other services."
"Having a herd of people whine into social control media will affect nothing. Pooling money and hiring lobbyists to represent the issues is how things get done."
"Maybe the "dark Web" became a suitable name for the World Wide Web we already have.""Risky Biz News wants to install Google Widevine [or at least] RB's newsletter (which is not self-hosted) or the subcontractor (substack) which is hosting it are pushing DRM via Widevine."
"One more thing about Google and the problems it makes, much of that might be the result of the toxic people and work culture intentionally imported from Microsoft into Google about 15+ years ago. The managers see programmers and high-tech staff as fungible commodities; they are anything but, especially if they are the kind of human stains that have passed through Redmond."
We'll probably be hearing a lot more about it in months to come. Maybe the "dark Web" became a suitable name for the World Wide Web we already have. ⬆