this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
636 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59148 readers
2340 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is correct, but for now, Mozilla has the right stance on the matter.
I'm still waiting for what Apple's stance is. They integrated functionality into Safari that technically works similarly, but that's only used for captcha verification. I can see them choosing either side to be honest. They can embrace the Web Integrity API because it fits their "closed ecosystem" (in case of iOS devices) type of product quite well, but on the other hand they don't really have a website that would be suitable to use the Web Integrity API, so why would they give in to what Google wants? If Apple doesn't integrate Web Integrity API into Safari, I don't see any major website using it. They can't afford to lose ~28% of the mobile market.
Apple will follow suit: don't be taken in by the 'we love our customers' nonsense they like to present. They make billions in selling ads too, they just do it a little more quietly than Google.
Agreed. Apples stance on privacy is more about PR and keeping ad competitors at a disadvantage on their platform than actual privacy. Only reason they might not fall in line is if they feel there is enough public opposition to it to get some PR and make Google look bad. Not too optimistic on that though since most people are oblivious to the issue.
They don't sell ads on the web though, so I don't see how this would be related.
I kinda have two answers to this:
Not yet,
It was more an intent to show that they're not some shining defender of the ad-free private internet, who would never take action to defend a potential future revenue stream if they thought it might be profitable later.
Remember everyone, corporations are not your friends, your buddy, your pal, or even slightly gives a shit about you beyond how much money they can extract from your wallet and anything that's in the way of them doing so they'll work around, stomp on, and kill by any means necessary.