you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 3 years ago* (9 children)

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).

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    i personally don't understand why companies overlook accessbility, is it to save profits?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    why did you waste your time asking that question when you already knew the answer?

    It's always the profits!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent