Vivaldi on Android bypasses restrictions to let users access Bing Chat
vivaldi.com
vivaldi.com
Opera were always so good at giving a window into the world of compatibility testing & challenges - @hallvord in particular had a great blog on my.opera about their work subverting large websites that would block or thwart Opera & other non-IE browsers.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11177438
These days, Brave or Vivaldi have probably taken its place.
Google breaking stuff for Firefox, Microsoft breaking stuff for Chrome, ... There is a difference between not bothering to ensure full compatibility and showing a warning, and limiting to your own market.
We can keep pretending smart phones are not two different markets but one unified so apple and google are free to abuse users, but not computers and the web.
They control a huge share of one market, and they use it to force their way into another in an unfair way (Microsoft: windows to push edge and keep making it default and making it harder and harder and scarier to switch, and now using edge to push their own web services; Google: gmail & co to push chrome, ...).
One would argue "if it's not a monopoly is it not legal ?" but that's sort of my point, if it's illegal it should be punished, if it's currently legal it should be regulated.
We cannot keep treating browsers like a regular piece of software when they're becoming more and more like an utility. I sort of feel the same way toward OSes, but browsers are even more important.
Changing browsers went from a simple and smooth experience in 7/8, to one with roadblocks and warning in 10, to one that's absurdely abusive in 11, all to push Edge forward.
there artificial limitations imposed by Apple and MS are the only things that are keeping the browser market marginally competitive.
like what? and why do you think they could help? They’d have to somehow explicitly target Chrome to give it’s competitors a chance.
IE did not go to down because of some EU regulations or the bundling ban because Mozilla and Google simply released better browser.
Proposals start out strong and become PR operations after the watering down.
- Implement net neutrality but give data exemptions to mobile data operators if the traffic is from Facebook or Whatsapp.
- Implement ban on single use plastics but add so many exemptions that Nestle, Coca-Cola, Unilever, continue business as usual
- Implement Green New Deal but add a metric tonne of taxpayers money to support Hidrogen because Shell says so
- Start a Ban on ICEs but then push it back another 15 years because Exxon says so
Etc.
Regulations that create exceptions for key big players entrench them further and their poor business practices against competitors that wish to usurp their market dominance. New entrants have to play by the rules, but established ones get preferential treatment.
The stricter timetable for an ICE ban, to use something mentioned, was mainly changed due to pressure from European business interests, including in part Poland, Germany, Austria, etc. Essentially countries with a significant Auto industry that hasn't pivoted to EVs in the same way as e.g. France. I did not hear of Exxon lobbying to that extent in this case, but maybe I just missed that.
Basically, whilst US concerns definitely have their lobbying efforts in Brussels and Strasbourg, we need to be aware that European business is just as able and willing to engage in the same. The lack of interest in European politics compared to the national level tends to make this more frictionless and effective too, though that is a bit of a chicken/egg problem. People won't engage much with EU politics if the EU is seen as overly bureaucratic and lead by lobbyists, but there is little incentive to change without public interest.
Still feel that regulators can do tremendous good if motivated. The US has shown their abilities during Dieselgate, the EU in data protection. We, the public, need to tune in. Writing letters and calling does make a difference, as hard as that can be to believe.
Hydrogen is pretty much the main hope for truly carbon neutral replacement of industry use of natural gas (huge in Germany for instance). Long range transportation could also probably use it - modern day batteries are simply impossible to use on e.g. medium and up range aircraft.
It's not simply a "because Shell said so thing". France is also investing massively in hydrogen, in multiple local companies Shell has nothing to do with.
> - Start a Ban on ICEs but then push it back another 15 years because Exxon says so
I'm fairly sure the ban on new ICEs is for so out in the future because it's simply impossible to replace all automobile manufacturing capacity much quicker; and if anyone is lobbying against it (do Exxon even do business in the EU??), it's existing EU-based manufacturers that have to retool their entire supply chains to produce EVs. Most are on their way, but EVs are still a small part of their portfolio and manufacturing capacity. Not to mention the drastic loss of employment that will come. It's just not something you can do with short notice.
Not sure if you are joking... Even if you don't have an Esso petrol pump within a few minutes' drive unlike the majority of Europeans, in their own words
"We are one of Europe’s largest oil and gas producers, a major refiner of crude oil for fuels and lubricants, and one of Europe’s leading petrochemical companies"
In Switzerland the three big wholesalers got together and switched their whole truck fleet to hydrogen. They have the foresight to invest their money well.
Moreover, it is theoretically viable to produce all electric energy via renewables, albeit impracticle and 100 years away. Thus, I can't see how saying that """EVENTUALLY""" hydrogen might be renewable is good for the environment.
Hydrogen is good for a very niche part of our production system (and spoiler it is not car industry or house heating where better alternatives already exist[1][2]).
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/home-heating-with-hydrogen-is-ill-... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-021-00706-6
and if you live in apartment there is usually no way to charge at home.
Most societies at various times that built future proof infrastructure had a healthy amount of engineers at the higher levels. Germany, France, the US, China(whatever you make think of their society they are clearly at the forefront of hard tech and infrastructure investments right now), Taiwan(or R.O.C.). If you listen to older folks in Taiwan they will tell you that a lot of infrastructure including the heavy investment in semiconductors and other infrastructure early on was very much related to the amount of engineers they had in senior leadership.
With that level of "knowledge" about the EU and how it works and is composed, you should probably educate yourself a little bit on the matter before making such affirmative comments.
Now companies package all sorts of random crap, often make it impossible to remove or in many cases even disable, prevent users from getting apps except from their own walled in app-stores (where they take a huge cut of revenue), phone home endlessly for opaque purposes, forcibly impose updates which regularly reset user preferences to the benefit of companies, artificially promote their products in every single way (such as by being the automatically selected 'default' selection in every aspect of a system, knowing full well that changing the default is too onerous for the average user), and much much more.
The problem is not a lack of regulations or rules, but a lack of enforcement. As soon as all of these big tech companies started "lobbying" politicians, let alone becoming deeply intertwined with our intelligence agencies [2], it's like any concern whatsoever about antitrust just disappeared, or at least set to a practically unreachable level of villainy. All the rules in the world don't matter if they're simply not enforced for certain companies.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
I don't know about US law, but EU competition law is concerned about “significant market power” and not (just) monopolies.
That's why I hope for them to react to this one. The EU has been stepping up lately about making sure enforcement match the rules.
Now "nobody" buys Windows N on purpose, but its legally necessary existence force Microsoft to keep these components away from Windows' internals.
Having a media player bundled with the OS is bad, but having it tightly coupled is bad and stupid.
to be fair it was way worse in the 2000. Publisher’s cut, physical manufacturing and the brick and mortar store margin when added together was generally way more than 30%. Of course Apple giving you no choice but to use their appstore sucks and is something that should be fixed via regulation. However generally 30% seems like a good deal for some products (e.g. nobody is forcing game developers to publish on steam).
As much as everyone loves to complain about MS, at least they sold us an operating system and we could pretty much do on top of it whatever we wanted.
Windows wouldn’t have had 95% of the the market had they tried that. Also comparing a Desktop/PC OS with a phone is not completely fair, you can do all of that on macOS (assuming you’d don’t mind updating your app every few years since Apple couldn’t care less about backwards compatibility).
But I was mostly focusing on the 30% bit and I still don’t believe you could have reached a significant audience back in the 00s without having to give someone else a much bigger share than that.
https://community.cloudflare.com/t/browser-integrity-check-b...
It's ridiculous, but we need a regulation stating that web sites designed for use by the public need to be accessible by the public. Of course I don't mean performing compatibility checks with the last 5 editions of three dozen different browsers, but simply avoiding situations that lead directly or indirectly to
if browser$ == a {render site}
if browser$ == b {render site}
if browser$ == c {render site}
if browser$ == d {render site}
else {echo "go away"}
Yes, IMHO it is the the old browser wars resurfaced and I don't really understand why. Arrogance cloaked by the veil of security? We've learned nothing. At worst I consider this a corollary to net neutrality...and we know where that currently stands. I would love for the EU to take notice, but they seem so obsessed with cookies. I briefly tried getting the EFF to take a stance, but don't think they bit. Maybe it's because everybody IS using Chrome?
if browser$ == b {render site B}
if browser$ == c {render site C}
if browser$ == d {render site D}
else {echo "go away"}
is the nightmare situation we're circling the drain on approach
If everything is going digital, this will be necessary for visually impaired people to access critical information.
You already will have a very tough time hosting your own materials without using a major player as an intermediary. Emails in particular are far more likely to be blacklisted simply because they're not originating from a known approved source regardless of your DKIM, SPF, or DMARC settings. Adding that every new website has to be fully accessible to the visually impaired when on top of that there isn't a single collectively approved standard to measure yourself against would be an enormous hassle and stop a lot of new people from even being able to take a chance with starting a new website.
However, that is remediable with an approved standard to meet and clear guidelines on the processes that must be followed to meet them, so that's not as big of a deal as it can be made out to be.
There should be no need to "support" it. The server should just send the data requested and be done with it. Whether or not it works is the user's problem.
What has the web turned into?
CloudFlare does tell users of their services how their different levels of protection will impact their visitors. The site owners CHOOSE to add those barriers. CloudFlare didn't force them, they're perfectly happy being a mostly passive CDN if that's what the website owner wants.
It's amazing the insight 30 years of hindsight can provide. At the time of MS releasing IE, the internet was this thing unlike anything Gen Z can compare to what the internet is now. It was one step up from being something used only in CompSci labs at universities accessed via dial-up modems that were measured in bauds then kbps. Now we have Gbps, >50% of internet traffic is streaming videos (i'm probably shorting that %), everyone has a connected device in their pocket, and pretty much all commerce is done via the web. It did that in less than the 30 years since IE. What can you accurately predict will have the same "in retrospect" analysis applied to it in a similar manner?
* I'm rounding up to 30 years, since we're closer than not to it.
Implementing it has required work but mostly due to the need to change habits, it didn't add any real burden in day to day life, it promoted a much healthier and safer environnement for our customers, it allowed us to push something we believe in without disadvantaging us compared to our competitors, and it gave us a direct marketing advantage in that customers trust us much more than "web giants" to keep our words about this in the experience I have.
YMMV but the GDPR has been a massive gain on every front for me, both as a user, as a citizen and as a small business owner and operator.
This is a weakness of the regulation, not an issue with the concept of regulation.
There should be a much clearer ban on applying these dark patterns to trick people into consenting.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but time and time again these practices have been deemed illegal, in no small part due to the legal hijinx of Max Schrems.
Perhaps GDPR came into existence partly as a solution to this issue. One could argue that its design started from a premise to make data collection and trade more manageable for big corporations, but then was reverse-engineered to present it as a policy protecting people's privacy. This way, the EU could maintain its image as a protector of citizens' rights, while simultaneously assuaging public concerns over data security. This could result in individuals being more willing to consent to data collection.
A significant contributing factor to this could be the EU's 'Cookie Law', which may have conditioned users to automatically agree to pop-ups without thoroughly understanding what they're consenting to.
While this perspective may sound cynical, it's worth considering that regulatory decisions can have complex motivations and implications, often beyond the most apparent intent to do good.
Why should that be a goal of the legislation at all? The design of the GDPR makes their business model illegal, in the same way that the design of the EPA makes chemical dumping illegal. Providing a path to legitimize their data collection would be contrary to the goal of stopping their data collection.
And somebody doesn't like EU regulating tech companies on their own soil? Clowns...
The side effect of this is that stuff is broken in Firefox all the time. And if you're using Firefox on anything other than a Mac, good luck getting anyone here to fix your issue.
i.e. not following defined standards and verifying interoperability?
Standards are made for a reason, I expect professionals to be informed of them and put effort into adhering to them.
this is marketing jargon. Say 'curated' or 'controlled'. Heck pick any word that doesnt have roses and delicious fruits involved.
Google and Apple exert unbelievable levels of control over the entire Internet simply with their two app stores, even forcing various social media to censor legal speech.
If everybody does that customers would have to install every browser, and then use chrome to visit google.com, edge to visit microsoft.com or have each browser spoof the websites on visit. That's just stupid.
I won't use software from companies that abuse their power. Microsoft is out. They should be fined for anti competitive behaviour.
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
WebKit KHTML Gecko Mozilla Safari...
Some people don't know Bing Chat is available in Skype, and almost everyone (over 30) has a Skype account already so that's a pretty low friction way to try it. Be aware though, that Bing Chat itself does not know that it's available in Skype and will refuse to continue the conversation if you insist that's how you're talking to it. Some people also don't know that on Android you can easily find & install the "Skype Lite" (for India, targeting low end devices) APK which is better than any other current version of Skype.
This is the great part about Google doing FOSS. Even though google has gone evil, we still have the code. Its an incredible check and balance.
In the future I believe google will let people choose whether they want to see ads and which ads, it's just a matter of time
Watch 10 ads that arent curated, or watch 1 add that is targeted to you + get 50 google points.
Unless I'm missing something from the article?
I have many uses for non-standard browsers, and they're not kidding about the discrimination.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bing-chat-for-all-...
...but not happy enough to install Edge!
I remember back when I worked at (then recently acquired by Microsoft) Mojang and was building a solution to log into Minecraft using a Microsoft account, i couldn't access Xbox.com because I was on a Linux machine. This was during their Microsoft <3 Linux campaign.
I sent a very angry email to our internal contacts in the relevant team telling them to stop blocking us from developing a feature for Minecraft that our mutual overlord had dictated we implement.
It actually worked (kinda)! They removed user-agent filtering from the pages we needed. I wish they removed it from their business practice entirely, but that's to big an ask I guess
You can avoid that by using Bing Chat for All Browsers.
EDIT: Oh, it's bad! Just lies in more subtle ways.
To be fair to Microsoft, it is a little broken in Firefox - but at least I'm able to use it now.
but to be fair i never tried using it on edge, so i didn't had any comparison
Considering Microsoft Edge is based on Chrome... what's to prevent Microsoft Edge from telling Google, "Hey there, I'm Chrome!" just to screw with the notification?
Or heck, why not have a built-in lightweight Ad-Blocker that detects "We recommend Chrome" popups and hides them?
> Many websites worked perfectly in Vivaldi but were blocked when not included on the site’s allowed list of leading browsers. To combat this, back in 2019, we were forced to change Vivaldi’s User-Agent strings.
This is a poor characterization, and attributes as malice what is actually just technical debt. Did Vivaldi forget that every major browser's User-Agent basically masquerades as all the others?
Chrome's default User-Agent string advertises Chrome, AppleWebKit, Gecko (Firefox), and Safari. Go figure.
I use vivaldi as a "javascript disabled" browser, since I can't disable javascript in firefox.
No and no. I think neither Chrome nor Firefox have that feature built-in in the settings UI, and the blog post is about how Vivaldi doesn't just masquerade as Edge, but completely identifies as it when visiting bing, to get over the fence. All other sites still get the normal UA string.
> This is a poor characterization, and attributes as malice what is actually just technical debt. Did Vivaldi forget that every major browser's User-Agent basically masquerades as all the others?
Err what... The cluttered UA string we have today is the result of exactly that kind of practice, blocking browsers because they're not X. If companies still decide to block browsers in new products today because of their UA string, this is the opposite of technical debt.