Google's New World [Wide Web] Order
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2024
- I'm not saying Google is going into this with the intention to cause harm, BUT...
Trusting a tech behemoth to uphold a "do no evil" philosophy becomes quite a challenge when they essentially possess the power to do whatever they want.
Google Web Environment Integrity Explainer:
github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web...
_________________________________________________________
Chapters:
0:00 Web Environment Integrity
0:43 Google’s Proposal
1:47 Digital Rights Management
3:12 How WEI Works
5:32 Concerns
7:43 WEI Should Not Be Used
_________________________________________________________
Music:
Godmode: Time To Pass
Chris Zabriskie: The Life and Death of a Certain K. Zabriskie, Patriarch
Godmode: Traversing
Loopop: Wolf Mother
Jeremy Blake: Absolutely Nothing - Наука та технологія
They removed "Don't be evil" from their code of conduct years ago for a reason
"Don't be evil" unless we sell off the service or turn its lights off. Then it isn't us being evil.
Retroactively speaking, that's pretty evil.
Did they legitimately have that statement in their mission statement at one point? Seems like they could just keep it there and insist everything they do is in accordance with it.
they only removed Don't from their code " ̶D̶o̶n̶'̶t be evil"
@@joshuan. Apparently they fired employees that were holding them to the code and were later sued by those former employees, so they axed it
And this is why I have degoogled devices. Nor do I have gmail. I just have throwaway account to comment.
The thought just occurred to me that with WEI, they're only going to trust known, popular software (OSes, browsers, etc.) that the majority uses. What if someone is developing a new operating system, a new browser (including engine) or any other piece of software that the attestation step does not approve of? It isn't just big name-and-size companies developing such software (look at SerenityOS and the Ladybird browser).
Especially considering that they want multiple attesters across multiple "owners" of said attesters, getting everyone up to the same page about the new pieces of software could be difficult, or even impossible for smaller individuals. This is anti-developer at the core.
Simple. You'll pay for a certificate from a "trusted authority" to sign it to give you special permission, just like how Microsoft expects you to pay hundreds of dollars for a code-signing certificate to sign executable files that developers make in order to avoid people getting scared away from using your programs with Microsoft's "SmartScreen" big scary warning dialog, or how Chrome will scare people away from websites that don't have SSL certificates with that big scary red page. 😒
WEI could also be used to force users into updating. Just one corporate bribe is all it takes to make it so you have to upgrade your software, or worse, your hardware. Just imagine the hellscape that would take place for Linux devs. The main issue behind it's lack of traction among the average user is simply support. WEI would be the thing that could kill open source software.
Just imagine, you are using your old Thinkpad one day, but oh no, Lenovo bribed major companies to force you into being unable to access Facebook, Twitter (I ain't calling it what you want it to be, Musk!), or some other platform until you buy a new laptop.
This can extend even to Google itself, it has its fingers in almost every pie in the world, they could make it so your old Chromebook couldn't use their services, or make jailbroken chromebooks (like ones done to run Linux just to have up to date software) useless online. They could be financially nudged to block support for devices as well.
a couple additions to this:
1) it's worth considering how this may affect dissidents and journalists that use secure software (TAILS, tor, etc) to communicate sensitive information. said secure software would probably not succeed a WEI test, and could thus make their work even more difficult than it is
2) I believe I read in the WEI specification that, as part of the implementation, a small percentage of requests for attestation would be obfuscated/mixed up on purpose so as to discourage blocking based on factors such as the user's OS or browser extensions. I'm not 100% sure what to think about this, would be curious to hear interpretations as to how such a scheme might affect the use of WEI in practice
That's the point. Google doesn't want you to use Tails, they don't make money that way.
@@thepwrtank18 Lots of people currently use ad-blockers and privacy software and such, and Google is on the verge of bankruptcy. … 🤔 Oh, wait, no it's not, in fact, it's one of the richest companies in the world at multiple TRILLIONS of dollars. But apparently, that's not enough, they can't let those people who use ad-blockers get away with it when there's even a single penny of more profit to be had (of course, it's specious profit like corporations claiming that EVERY pirated copy of something is a lost sale even though most of the people who resort to piracy wouldn't have bought it if a bootleg copy wasn't available 😒).
True. This will lead to assassination of various dissents ,whistleblowers and journalist in countries ruled by dictators.
i dont know what to do about it. i dont wanna see their evil plan successful. We need to do something about it. any idea?
@@exFeeds336 start spreading awareness of it. even if you assume this is certain to pass and that every expediency will be taken on the way there and that nothing will stop google from doing this, we most likely have about 3-5 years of lead time before implementation at scale can start. thus, the silver lining is that we have time
Yep, this is the problem, and people complain about Manifest V3 that doesn't even do anything bad but somehow missed this. The problem isn't really Google itself trying to do harm, it's that it gives the tools for many others to do harm.
Countless people and websites have been abusing EVERYTHING since the "www" first began, remember popups and cookies and tracking and JS crypto-miners and a million other ways people abused tech? This will 100% be another thing that scummy people and sites will abuse. Bravo, Google on your continued progress to destroy the Internet. 😒👍
Google has been pretty corrupt and evil for a while now, so I am not surprised if they are trying to bring more harm.
The Internet was designed and intended to be freely used by everyone. not "everyone who follows a set of integrity rules first." It's already bad enough that you can buy digital media (such as games in Steam) and then the service can choose to remove the game from their servers whenever they want but don't have to give you a refund.
Meh, the offline world is rapidly becoming a dystopian police-state, why not the online world too? 🤷
@@I.____.....__...__The order is more like the reverse, bro. Things go to shit online first, people's brains are fried into mush, which then seeps out into real life. It's no shock that only in the past generation have so many things gone to the dogs.
What an absolutely hilarious way to create a new man in the middle vector.
We're talking about Google here, the company with hundreds of thousands of "smart" employees at its disposal, that thought it was a good idea to create TLDs that match common file extensions and thus, create a whole bunch of new vulnerabilities and attack-vectors. 😒
The Internet is already ruined, for 15 years or more. You can't ruin it any more for an average user, but Google can ruin it for their competitors, other big corporations.
So, it's basically like Google Play Integrity, but instead of Android, it's for web browsers... disgusting!
Nice too see you also talking about this. Something like this would Screw over Web Archivists
and the giants would be happy to do so. why let the archivists archive when you could erase history instead?
i have been watching this channel for a while, and i can safely say it is criminally underrated.
This is what happens when one megacorp has control over so much of the web/world
At this point, Google could just enable this in just one site: UA-cam, and every browser including even Firefox would essentially be forced to follow suit to retain any relevance.
The web needs to be decentralized through something like the Fediverse, or this sort of enshittification will just keep on happening.
Third-party UA-cam clients (such as Piped) exist that would most likely not implement WEI; many people would likely switch to those if Google implements WEI in UA-cam.
@@SsvbxxYT If I'm not mistaken, WEI is the exact sort of thing that would prevent clients like Piped from working.
@@lovelydumpling ya true, good bye to web scraping
Firefox is the only option.
and Firefox has become WAY WAY better than chrome and WAY better than it used to be.
Just using Firefox won't stop this though. Google is trying to get this into the web as a whole, not just in Chrome.
@@gFamWeb well, but if the market share of Browsers wouldnt be 90% chromium-based, Google would not be able to pull this off.
If 90% of markets' Browsers were firefoxes, Google had 0 leverage on Website providers.
Firefox is *really* slow on my PC 😅
@@l01230123 It used to be like that for me too. I don't know which was the last version you tried, but they had 1 huge update in the past, that made Firefox substantially faster.
Also, it has become faster than chrome for me, with adblocking and tracking-removing addons.
It's alright. It's feature barren compared to Vivaldi which does use Chromium. But my guess is there will inevitably be an alternative to v8.
"With all the resources and talent at their disposal you'd think that Google would separate users with good intentions from the bad actors but they don't."
I can attest to that. Exactly what happened to me last week when some outraged person from a comment decided to report a personal-use playlist of mine, and it got removed either way despite going back-and-forth with UA-cam. Told me the playlist contained video that violate community guidelines, but they don't ever removed the original video to begin with, seemed like they only comply to the removal because someone was mad about it. Removing a playlist, is just an analogy for removing a container, with the stuff in it still available to be watched via the original uploader's channel. It effectively does nothing.
Kept reminded them that they should be going to the "root cause", the original video if they truly want the video to be removed entirely from their platform, and on a case-by-case basis, instead of removing a random user's entire playlist, for over four times but they kept sidelining that conversation.
Now I've lost hundreds of easily accessible videos in the playlist because of some violating video apparently, Big Brother Corpo are unjust.
The late-stage web is increasingly centralized more and more, we need to turn the tide before these corporations became the state government of the internet that has the dictatorship of saying what can be used and what cannot be used. I just signed up for an open-source front-end instance of Invidious right after Google/UA-cam did that to me, after figuring out that my personal stuff isn't safe from Big Corpo Google.
i am making an app/website especially for that. what it will do is to let the users organize its video/audio/files.
Whatever video/audio is there, its link is needed to be copied and can be added to the playlist. I will add another option which will download the audio/video, upload back to your desired cloud and store locally and add feature of encryption for sensitive video/audio.
Alright, see y'all on the Onion network.
I feel like these new APIs proposed by Chrome are overblown, largely because even though Chromium and Chrome itself dominates the browser market, they still don't control the web. Other Chromium browser vendors like Brave and Edge have previous stepped in against controversial APIs introduced by Google, and removed them from their versions of Chromium. For example, Google wanted to add an API to help ads track users (FLoC), and all other browsers did not ship it.
A decent number of people use Edge and Safari, and Safari is the only option available for iOS viewers, so websites either have to force their users to switch to Chrome, which would significantly reduce their userbase, or not require the controversial API.
for now..........
This is why I've switched to Firefox and encourage others to do the same.
that wont help. with wei website can detect which browser u r using and if using firefox then it will say 'get the f off'
Cheating in browser based games?
Didn’t know that was an issue that matters 😂
I mean, Google already has a huge share in CAPTCHAs, the current "protection system". So, the claim doesn't seem too far-fetched.
Meanwhile, CloudFlare is trying to get rid of CAPTCHAs altogether and moving towards making everybody use 2FA as if everybody is going to be able to afford to buy a Yubikey and carry it around everywhere. 😒
2:12 u can screen record netflix if u turn off hardware acceleration
hey chm tech, been watching for about 6 years now, thanks for continuing to make videos after all this time :)
Google, could, technically, use this to have their websites only work on Chrome. Some websites, such as Snapchat's webapp, already block the use of Firefox.
Don't be evil Google.
07:20 - so you're not going to mention UA-cam? One of the larges Video based social media sites on the web owned and controlled by Google.
I mean, you can't forget the site you'ce just uploaded too XD
You’re right. And they own so much other stuff as well, the list could really gone on and on 😅
I'm just imagining not being able to watch UA-cam videos because I have a non-googled phone! Not that i typically use it for watching videos, but every now and then I do... sooo hopefully this DRM for the web just dies as fast as most other google projects...
The whole thing is still in a very early stage. But usually when Google sets their minds on something, it gets carried out, eventually. The only question is in what form. WEI needs major revisions, to say the least.
@chmtech Agreed, I think if it was less google controlled and was pushed to be handled by a non-profit a lot of people would be more on board but still sceptical.
Additionally, how much would this slow down the general web experience? understandably it wouldn't be too heavy on resources, but what about older devices? and what about throttling because you're on an old or unsupported device? there's too much uncertainty
and thats not fun in today's modern web.
Great video Brother this is a little worrisome!
please make a video on how turning machine works
I don't get it. Since when did Google lay claim to how the entire Internet is going to work?
since they essentially got a monopoly on what browsers everyone uses, now that nearly every browser on the market uses chromium
Since they decided to kill off Flash and NPAPI plugins for their own thing and the world bent over and allowed it. It's just like dirty cops, once they get away with a crime once, they get emboldened to keep doing it and escalating to worse things. 🤦
This will be used for forced migration to Microshafts latest OS as a service exactly like DX has been.
It makes me think a lot of people (including myself) have switched to Linux but I believe Google will be implementing this to make people switch back to Windows and Windows integrating their c2pa!
HURR MICROSOFT BAD HURR DURR. are you people serious? my god, the bad guy is google and you people STILL foaming at the mouth over Microsoft...
@@apple_m2_delight Your really not that bright are you.
@@noanyobiseniss7462 explain to me how microsoft did everything from this video
@@apple_m2_delightboth ms and google are bad
The photo on 2:48 is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0, which is a copyleft license, which means...
?
@@JamesTDG Which means the whole video should be under CC BY-SA now
Good news: Google has given up on Web Environment Integrity. Don't let your guard down, though; they (and/or their corporate friends) are likely to try something else just as bad, or worse.
They are positioning themselfs to be the Gatekeepers.
to be fair to overzealous security measures used by businesses (god this statement feels like I'm some demon, to clarify I don't like these practices but I do want to say why they do them to my knowledge) people are now being trained to not trust anything, from the competence of employees to any device. Whilst this does really suck for people that are just using these things for random customization options it does create a much more secure... well anything I guess. Seriously you could apply these same practices to a chair and make the most secure chair ever but it would be overkill and an unnecessary inconvenience for people that just want to sit down.
Bro I been watching you since I was like 8 bro
when will people do something?
while this is a terrible idea, this is also in the conceptual stage as of now, which means we have the silver lining of doing something about it right now. even if this were guaranteed to happen, full implementation wouldn't be rolling out until at least a few years from now
@@powerLien oh yea
how in the hell is a normal person supposed to convince a company to not do something
@@bartek1887 Suing them based on anti-trust laws? Or report them to the institutions in your country that do that?
People be using Chrome and Chromium-based browser until it reached 90%, so I'm not surprised. Same goes with Windows and their 70% of PC market.
So do google bots get a free pass, or is the search engine going to turn irrelevant?
How hard is it to keep the web free?
Very
While the intentions behind WEI are good, there are so many ways that websites could use it to do harm, placing artificial restrictions on legitimate software that is perfectly capable of using them. It's a terrible idea.
- There is no guarantee websites won't be able to use WEI to stop users with adblockers from accessing them. This could be the end for adblockers. If a website decides that you have to see ads, you'll have to see ads, or they'll block you from accessing the website entirely.
- Some websites may deny access from certain browsers or even operating systems, simply because they haven't tested their site on those browsers and OSes. Regardless of if the website actually works on them or not. Linux distros, and non-Chromium browsers like Firefox and Safari, may be particularly affected by this.
- Some websites may deny access for Linux users entirely, assuming that all traffic coming from Linux must be bots running on a server.
- It will probably be much easier for software that is proprietary or at least developed by a company to become trusted as "legitimate software" by WEI. Open source or community-developed software may be seen as "less trustworthy" and have a harder time getting the approval of WEI.
8:35 fin.
Day 3 of asking to make a video on how turing machine works
I am wondering something. Imagine someone is using a browser/os/extension that the server decides to block with a WEI test. Could the user use some software to dissociate the WEI test part, from the actual webpage display part? For example the WEI test would be run in a clean version of chrome, then the request results would be forwarded to whichever browser using whatever extensions. Since browsers are free and OS can be emulated, I dont get what prevents the user from doing that ? I guess the solution cannot be that simple, I must have misunderstood something 😂
It could even be built-in a browser such as Firefox, and be advertised as a privacy feature?
No, the whole point is that the browser sends some sort of fingerprint to the server, the server decides whether it likes it or not, and sends the content of the page only if it does. So if you don't provide the WEI data it likes (let alone at all), it gives a 404-style error (or whatever HTTP error code they'll make up for this, like "569 Server could not authenticate device, use a Google-approved device" or "5420 Device has unsupported extensions installed, remove them to see page".
@@I.____.....__...__And OP's point is that a clean install of chrome/Windows 11 could send the fingerprint, get approved, get the data from the webpage, then forward it to your browser/os of choice. How would WEI stop this?
@@Patashu The problem is that why is it going to be required to either run or emulate operating systems and browsers just to visit a webpage
Day 2 of asking to make how turing machine works
google is also making youtube slow for edge
The reason Google feel entitled to propose this stuff is because they own the dominant web browser. It's all very well Brave saying "We don't like this" when their browser is literally based on Chromium. Only Firefox and its derivatives are opposing Google Chrome's market dominance.
Hello
so in otherwords WEI would basically make it so that if your not complying with Goverment, and big tech then you could be denied access to the internet even though your paying for access. If your compliant could then be determined by what browser, OS, device, you are using an by the political leanings of your browser and device history! Sounds unreasonable to me.
As someone who owns a company that designs and runs websites, mostly for local news and small businesses., I would very much like to see a system that could block the thousands of bots we have hitting our servers, trying to login and testing forms as well as having a way to enforce no ad blockers (especially for the sites that are 100% ad supported, which is usually the main revenue stream for local news, no one pays for news anymore and adblockers can drive a local news site out of business).
However, I don't want Google doing this. They already have too much power and too much control over the internet and services used by websites and I don't trust them not use this system to further the power of larger corporations on the internet.
Adblocking is a right of the people. Because not seeing something is a right of everyone. If a business using ads as their source of revenue, and it goes out of business, then they should have searched for another source of revenue.
People hate ads, and will go out of their way to not see them after a breaking point.
Preventing people from using adblockers is the same as people preventing to mute their tv while ads are playing, or even preventing them from looking away.
There is a patent for such a system, by the way.
Bots I can agree with you, but not adblock.
@@Aura_MancerThat is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read all day.
First, It's nothing like TV. Stations charge advertisers for slots of airtime based on the estimated reach in that time slot. The station gets paid the same regardless of if 100 or 100,000 people see the ad. On the web, advertisers pay for the number of people who see or click on an ad and the websites revenue from that ad is directly correlated to the number of impressions and clicks. Muting or looking away from your TV doesn't mean the station makes any less money.
A good portion of the internet is ad supported, meaning the sites make the money they need to cover the cost of running the website and providing their services through advertising. No one likes it but its the model the internet likes so they don't have to pay for every single website they use. Imagine if very news site, social media company and email provider, required a subscription.
Servers are private infrastructure, and a person or company running the website has the right to say, if you don't want to see the ads on the site that are necessary for the site to keep running, they you don't have permission to access the site.
Also, there are already Adblock recapture systems that block users running an adblocker, and yes some of them are patented.
Ah yes, insulting someone when by saying I said something dumb, such a nice argument.
I never denied they depended on it, and I'm not interested on if they make money or not. That is not my problem as the end user. I don't use any social media, not twitter, not facebook, and I could theoretically do so for free. And they make their money of investors and data stealing anyway.
If something is not profitable, then it isn't. That doesn't deny the right of me to not watch ads shoved in my face. If you block ads in your website, I'll circumvent it. I can always download the content, specifically if it's news. Just download the html, and then load it offline.
And, let me add, since you made it personal, do you know why block ads? I'm not simply annoyed by them, they massively stress me out. I have autism, and loud ads in youtube videos (looking at you, Apple, volume boosting your videos) and flashy ads everywhere over-stimulate me and make my life harder.
You can't put fences on the countryside and expect people not be able to jump over, same with adblock. There have always been "adblock blocking" systems, and it's always just a matter of circumventing them, cat and mouse.
And if a website is somehow magically preventing me from watching the content until I watch the ads, then I will take my time elsewhere.
Just saying "welp it's how it works whether we like it or not, better make it worse by implementing counter-measures" is just an excuse.
If something isn't profitable, blaming the end user is just short sightednessm. Adblock was made for a reason. And still goes strong today.
Ah, and lets not talk about the malware my family has avoided by not clicking on malicious ads (beacuse I installed adblock)
Tell me, do websites have control over which ads they show? You'll tell me they're not responsible, but then who is?
Google, websites, etc play the "no one is to blame" game with advertising, and my theory is this is why they haven't tried to take adblocking to court. Because then they would be held accountable, and regulations would be made.
@@Aura_Mancer You might not personally be dumb, but your fundamental misunderstanding of how TV vs Internet advertising is uninformed (therefore, dumb). I would think you'd like to understand what you're talking about before you come into a conversation talking about "adblockers is the same as people preventing to mute their tv."
Here's the thing. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to get into the weeds with you about ad blockers, Intellectual property, website TOS, website ad recapture systems and why no one has taken an ad blocker developer to court.
Websites and the people who pay to run them and make the content for them get to decide the model to fund their site, and when it comes to adblockers, if enough people start using them, then yes, there will absolutely be systems put in place to start restricting users with them turned on from being able to access certain sites, or they will switch to a paid model.
A business can be profitable and still shutdown or get driven out of business due to rampant theft, and at some point, it's not even about the ads, it's about supporting the sites you use. Sure, everyone in a town could use an adblocker on their local news site, but they are going to be pissed when there is no more local news.
Also, I'm not sure what Autism has to do with any of this. If you want to argue that an adblocker is an accommodation for Autism, that's fine, but that's not the argument you're making.
@@Aura_Mancer Also "I'm not interested on if they make money or not."
But the people who run and create the content for the site are and it would be irresponsible for them not to find way to prevent people from being able to access their content without also accessing the ads that paid for that content.
At the end of the day a website it like any other business and they have a right to tell you to kick rocks if you don't want to see the ads.
Well said. Very well said
@CHM did your voice come from an AI text to speech?
Nope he always sounds like that
I am all for having this in a competitive game, so no game modifications can be made, but for the web? Hell no
just dont use google as much as possible if you can. but also if youre into it, data hoard as much as you can.
"Not using google" wouldn't solve the issue. Even if you do use Google, other sites would have to comply with Google's terms, thereby locking you out if you don't use google.
@@endlord_1.185 good point.
Good job everyone who uses Chrome, you did this.
I know it's easy to blame the average user, but at the end of the day, the majority of the responsibility lies with google, and their ever expanding monopoly.
Don't be so quick to blame the average user. After all, Chrome may well be the only browser they've ever known. It may also be the most convenient, especially since it comes pre-installed with most devices nowadays.
Even if they are aware of other browsers, they may still not be knowledgeable enough to know why Chrome and google are bad, and just go with the most popular option, because the most popular is the best right? Or maybe they just don't care.
Either way, i don't think it's good to blame somebody for simply being ignorant. Most of the time, ignorance isn't malicious, but unfortunately, it's something for malicious actors (google) to take advantage of.
@@endlord_1.185 makes you wonder tho why Microsoft has been dealt with in court for its IE6 dominance while no one gives a flying crap about Google and Chrome.
Unlike back then we now also have the unhealthy situation that every browser safe for Firefox and Safari uses Chromium as a base.
Don't look at me, the closest I am is using Brave...
@@endlord_1.185 No, every person that uses a product without doing their due diligence is at fault. Convenience does not trump moral duties.
@@TahaJelani I agree that everybody should be aware of the risks of the products they use, and in an ideal world, that would be the norm. However, this is obviously *not* and ideal world. The majority of the population simply doesn't have the time, or even energy, to research the products and services they use.
Most people are too busy working to put food on the table, that even when they do get free time, they aren't going to spend that time researching something they likely don't care about. People are simply not afforded the necessary leisure to properly care about the products and services they use.
One more thing; "Convenience does not trump moral duties." doesn't make much sense to me. What if somebody doesn't share the same morals as you and i? Does that automatically make them malicious? Even if they do share the same morals, they may still fall victim to ignorance. After all, ignorance is bliss.
The cultural and societal environments we live in created the perfect storm for this kind of corporate technological monopoly. When people don't have the time to properly research and understand the products they use, it creates ignorance, malicious or not. And when most people are ignorant, regardless of if they want to or chose to be, it allows corporations to push their products onto the population, and thus creating the ever expanding monopoly we're witnessing now.
Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around, but at the end of the day, it only makes sense that the majority of the blame lies with corporations, and the societal & social environments that allowed this to happen.
Hot take: This is actually good for the internet. If the big corporate websites block you, because they dont like your os or browser, the internet will essentially return to how it was some 15 years ago. Small personal websites, webrings, small forums... no corporate drm and tracking garbage
The problem is there's only so much of the tech-savvy users willing to spend on small personal websites now we're entered the centralized web with conveniences. For example, I still need to connect with my family and friends who live a long way apart, and also for my business, and telling all of them to use a ad-hoc decentralized solution that is prone to braking sometimes seemed like a hard reach for them. Making the all masses to use the same devices that they certified is what they hoped to achieve one day.
People livelihood (including personal circle and relationships) are connected in a lot of ways, whether on the internet or in real life.
As someone who runs a bunch of small news and business websites, I can say I want a system that can block malicious actors and enforce website TOS as much as the large corporations do. Smaller sites have less money to invest in the latest threat protection and a hurt the most by adblockers and IP theft.
Except there is a reason why after everything that has happen smaller decentralised social medias still aren't successful because the vast majority of people are still using the garbage big social media. People would bend over backwards to access the big websites even if it massively screws them over.
@@DavidCruickshank thats the point. Only people that know more about tech and care about it would be there