all 8 comments

[–]m68k 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not limited to Google. Regardless, this is why I use a user agent switcher as a middle-finger to these companies that block certain browsers.

[–]gretathroatborg 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

imagine not already blocking all google services in your firewall. google's the malware virus trojan

[–]happysmash27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, at least they haven't blocked Palemoon/Waterfox/Firefox, at least not yet. This is pretty disturbing, and I feel like Google and Microsoft are switching places in terms of how good/evil they are.

[–]gretathroatborg 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, at least

[copes in slave]

[–]Mnemonic 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

EEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

YOU NEED TO RUN OUR FUCKLOADS OF JS OR ELSE!?

[–]Drewski 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Google is now banning the popular Linux browsers named Konqueror, Falkon, and Qutebrowser from logging into Google services because they may not be secure.

Included in the message is a 'Learn More' link that brings us to a Google support article stating a browser may be blocked from signing in for the following reasons:

Don’t support JavaScript or have Javascript turned off

No Google, disabling Javascript does not make a user less secure. It does make it more difficult to fingerprint and track them however.

[–]Mnemonic 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Using js for 'security'-purposes is not the way... js is THE thing that you can locally mess with.

[–]mikipika 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fine tuning the propaganda machine, perhaps.