If there will be, google is powerful than most governments. They know there will be some lawsuit and they are prepared for it. Its just cost of doing business.
Google isn't more powerful than any governments it's just the USA that allows them to have power.
Dude they have all the data on you and your circle of friends. What you share? What was shared with you, all the stuff you can possibly imagine.
I'm not sure how they have this when I only use e2e encrypted communication to share stuff with my friends and none of us use their services.
Ah but my point was majority people dont.
No they aren't, the US just makes them look that way. I'm sure many european countries will object to and fight this.
Not directly but this could be an antitrust case in some places.
Reasonable people will disagree... but no, probably not. This is a feature which websites can choose to use in the same way that websites can choose to use notifications. Even if you dislike the fact that web browsers provide the option, it's the website itself that's actively choosing to impose on you.
Now, the counterpoint to this argument is that the feature in question will most likely further strengthen Google's position as the market leader and lock out new independent browsers. This is certainly true and similar logic has indeed been employed in cases like the Microsoft antitrust case. With that being said, Google still has that extra layer of abstraction sitting between it and the actual mechanism of action (i.e.: independent website owners who want DRM). Think of it like the Uber of anti-trust law.
![[wei] Ensure Origin Trial enables full feature · chromium/chromium@6f47a22](https://forkk.me/pictrs/image/f0a2bea4-7a31-4d23-a004-955e0eb5c782.png?format=jpg&thumbnail=256)
Could there be lawsuits over this?
If there will be, google is powerful than most governments. They know there will be some lawsuit and they are prepared for it. Its just cost of doing business.
Google isn't more powerful than any governments it's just the USA that allows them to have power.
Dude they have all the data on you and your circle of friends. What you share? What was shared with you, all the stuff you can possibly imagine.
I'm not sure how they have this when I only use e2e encrypted communication to share stuff with my friends and none of us use their services.
Ah but my point was majority people dont.
No they aren't, the US just makes them look that way. I'm sure many european countries will object to and fight this.
Not directly but this could be an antitrust case in some places.
Reasonable people will disagree... but no, probably not. This is a feature which websites can choose to use in the same way that websites can choose to use notifications. Even if you dislike the fact that web browsers provide the option, it's the website itself that's actively choosing to impose on you.
Now, the counterpoint to this argument is that the feature in question will most likely further strengthen Google's position as the market leader and lock out new independent browsers. This is certainly true and similar logic has indeed been employed in cases like the Microsoft antitrust case. With that being said, Google still has that extra layer of abstraction sitting between it and the actual mechanism of action (i.e.: independent website owners who want DRM). Think of it like the Uber of anti-trust law.