←back to thread

Apple already shipped attestation on the web, and we barely noticed

(httptoolkit.com)
596 points pimterry | 2 comments | 25 Jul 23 14:10 UTC | HN request time: 3.807s | source
Show context
tshaddox ◴[25 Jul 23 15:06 UTC] No.36863384[source]▶
I have a genuine question: why is this worse than normal captchas which the human must interact with directly? Or is any mechanism that attempts to prevent certain methods of “unattested” web access (e.g. curl or screen readers) bad for the same reasons?

And if the answer to the second question is “yes,” it makes me wonder why we’re even okay with (non-personal) content in the web being login-walled or pay-walled.

replies(2): >>36863455 #>>36863575 #
tamimio ◴[25 Jul 23 15:17 UTC] No.36863575[source]▶
Because as long as this mechanism isn’t automated and should be done manually, it would be impossible to have an aggressive captchas for example because you will lose all users, but if most users are now automated, expect a captcha or similar every time you load a page or scroll while using your privacy-friendly browser, rendering the whole process unbearable.
replies(1): >>36868725 #
1. tshaddox ◴[25 Jul 23 20:17 UTC] No.36868725[source]▶
I certainly see how that would be frustrating, but this is also true of login walls or paywalls even without considering any automation. As an example, I think it's bizarre that the Hacker News guidelines encourage links which are paywalled.
replies(1): >>36869352 #
2. tamimio ◴[25 Jul 23 20:54 UTC] No.36869352[source]▶
>I think it's bizarre that the Hacker News guidelines encourage links which are paywalled.

100% agree!! You can’t even complain about it either! That’s why I always upvote (even though I personally don’t like such systems) who post the archive link for such articles.