this is not cancellation. This is Google taking a step back, and regroup to attack back.

I suppose it’s “confusing perspective” worthy.

Then I hope it won’t get any traction.

I hope this is a joke and not intended to be real.

I have been with Firefox, since it’s inception. Never left it. And it never let me down.

Done airlines give you outside views, but shoot with potatoes. So it’s better not having that. Also there is nothing to see at most of the cruise height.

I want to see the 10x hamsters!

That’s really unfortunate and a bad service provider for you. If there is nothing that can be done for that service, you don’t need to use that browser as a daily driver, but can just use for the services that you mention. And you need to keep nagging the service provider for support.

This is not just a browser war. It’s a war over your rights, your control over your choices, your privacy, what software and hardware you can use. You are already feeling how that affects your life daily, consider this in a mass attack on you.

WEI will enable service providers to decide what firewall you can use, what addons you can have, what version of the browser you can reach their websites, what antivirus software that you need to have, what cpu architecture, which tablet … This list can go on.

sure this won’t start in this manner right away. But I can assure you it will evolve towards more control service providers have on you.

I can’t answer any of these. I don’t have the knowledge. I am not using Firefox on mobile, only on desktop. (opera mobile user)

However what I can say is, you need to make compromises on some of your convenience to free yourself from a user hostile company’s software, or forks of it which strongholds you to their whims. Silicon Valley is trying to profit against your best interests.

Also as a long running Firefox user, I don’t get these incompatibilities at all. And if you start using Firefox and increase the usage numbers the incompatible sites would need to reconsider their stance.

I strongly suggest against using any Chromium forks. I already explained why in another post. I’ll put the link to that here: https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.ml/t/282011/Why-do-most-browser-companies-opt-for-a-Chromium-Blink-base#entry-comment-1301554

Thank you. I edited the main body too.

I never used Chrome. happy user of Firefox since it’s conception.

Google is the maintainer and biggest contributor to chromium.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser) and they’ve already introduced wei into chromium without any pushback.

https://kbin.social/m/degoogle@lemmy.ml/t/255346/Google-is-already-pushing-WEI-DRM-Webpage-into-Chromium

There are forks of chromium already like Vivaldi. You can still use them. Unfortunately using them is not a guarantee that Google can’t use their usage numbers as leverage while politicing or advertising bad behaviour to other parties like social media.

Worse yet, maintaining a fork is a huge undertaking for a project in the size of chromium. This means in time the fork may struggle to keep up. Or upstream may introduce functions that depends on the bad behaviours and the fork be forced to either adopt both, or adopt none.

And that’s the problem. It gives full control power to Google. That’s the reason that popularity needs to be broken.

Did Opera announced any intent?

I still have trouble understanding the distinction between “a human consuming different artists, and replicating the style” vs “software consuming different artists, and replicating the style”.

For now spec calls “holdbacks”, which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can’t be used as a whitelist. Surely this “holdbacks” will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.

Shots fired! Shots fired!

I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( “content binding” to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.

Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.

So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.