if they outright forced us to stop day one there’d be outrage, so they instead ease us in. first a popup, then a timed popup, slowly leading to their actual goal but without the risk of an initial outrage. i know this is an extreme comparison but we’re like lambs to a slaughter
All the power that an advertisement network can buy. Especially youtube since it’s owned by google. And advertisers will be happy to have a way of forcing site visitors to run ads/malware or else they will not get served the content.
It’s similar to certain bank apps refusing to function on Android devices with an unlocked bootloader: you want the convenience of an e-banking application (/ad-driven corporate website)? – Your device (/web browser) “security” must be verified by the “authority” who actually owns your operating system, else you won’t. Everyone* will “be loving” their secure devices, because they “just work”.
*who is a potential
customerbuyer and therefore relevantGoogle is trying to use their dominance to actually own the www. The comment/issue section of the github site of the proposal is quite enlightening, if you have the time … especially their reactions on the general dismissal and condemnation of the proposal as unethical.
I do not use the native YouTube website. I do not have a Google/Gmail account. I do not use chromium, Chrome, or Edge, or Brave. I disable webscrpts and manually temporarily enable them as needed with all webscripts disabled again after Ivclose the browser. I don’t use nathive Android or iPhone. I have all 3rd party scripts and cookies blocked by default.
I never interact with any Google tracking or Google service on any of my electronic devices. I do not use Google search. Whatever happens with Google I will not see since I do not access anything Google on a monthly basis.