1412
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1412 points (99.0% liked)
Firefox
17303 readers
533 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
They try to present it as "detecting abuse", but it's literally just "allow servers to block non-verified browers"(in other words google blocking access to their services for non-chrome users(the people proposing it work for google)).
And as always these types of asshats always shit all over anyone using accessbility tools(or don't even consider them in the first place, which amounts to the same thing).
i personally don't understand why companies overlook accessbility, is it to save profits?
why did you waste your time asking that question when you already knew the answer?
It's always the profits!!!
I get it costs money to develop accessibility, but you can't rip off a blind man if he can't navigate your sight. I truly don't get it.
Edit: site, not sight
I want to laugh but .. well .. I'm not crying YOU'RE CRYING
They've simply run the numbers and decided it would cost more to support the blind man's access than they could get from plundering the blind man.
pretty much yes to keys and hashes. Just think HDCP and HDMI
That said, I imagine it'll have to be easier to hack software that isn't embedded in hardware. but it's also easier to issue revocation lists when you don't have to worry about bricking everyone's hardware. So I have no idea which way that balance tilts.
Very much the latter.
"Listen, if we didn't think about it, it's clearly not important."