Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by asdfasgasdgasdg 1775 days ago
> When did my web site become a Google property?

It isn't. Not sure that's relevant to the discussion though. We're talking about Google's TOS, which presumably the person at the start of this thread is concerned about having to accept to get an origin trial token.
1 comments
danShumway 1775 days ago
Seems relevant to me. Requiring a website owner who may have no relationship with Google to enter into a contract with Google in order for their website not to be broken for their users -- I think that's antithetical to the idea of an Open web.

Google is not offering any kind of service for that contract, other than that they won't break exiting functionality for your website, a thing that they have no ownership over. I feel it's problematic for a user to visit a website and essentially get told "the site will no longer work for you because the owner wouldn't sign our TOS."

TLDR, I don't like the philosophy that a website operator needs to get Google's permission for their site to work in Chrome.

link
asdfasgasdgasdg 1775 days ago
There will always be things about browsers that are different from vendor to vendor. It seems impractical to expect that you would be able to access all the relevant resources without going to the vendor's website.
link
danShumway 1775 days ago
> It seems impractical to expect that you would be able to access all the relevant resources without going to the vendor's website.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Going to Google's website or looking at Chrome documentation is a lot different than signing a TOS with them.

And Chromium is Open Source, so I don't need to sign a TOS to test V8 changes or get access to Chromium features.

The only reason a TOS is coming into this is because Google artificially inserted one in front of an origin trial that realistically should be handled based on some kind of request header or at most as a signup form with a DNS check for owner verification. None of that should require a legal contract or Google account.

link
userbinator 1775 days ago
TLDR, I don't like the philosophy that a website operator needs to get Google's permission for their site to work in Chrome.

I absolutely agree with you and think that we need a term for (the opposition to) this: browser neutrality.

link