Why wouldn’t making a paid web browser be legal?

danpalmer 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Obviously it isn't, but also obviously: this isn't a web browser in anything but technical implementation. It's a packaged, sold, interface to a proprietary service with a set of T&Cs that they are free to enforce.

Also every single one of these that I've seen before has fallen down in the same way. Chat apps that embed Facebook, third party YouTube viewer for Apple's VR headset, various other third party Instagram apps, etc.

▲

Gigachad 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Even if it is legal, meta and google will just block you from accessing the service.

▲

nslsm 7 hours ago | parent [-]

How?

▲

danpalmer 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can't tell if this is a good faith question, but in the interests of good discussion, there are many ways they can do this. Technical solutions include blocking the user agent, blocking request patterns, client-side feature detection, client-side attestation, but importantly they are not limited to technical solutions, there are also things like cease and desist letters, breaches of contracts, pressure on the software distributors, lawsuits.

This is no judgement of whether these are the steps they might take, or whether they would be right in doing so, I want to remain neutral on this. But I would point again to the many instances of things like this happening in the past.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Like most things.. it is a cat and mouse game dependent on how heavily they believe their revenue could be impacted. I am not sure why you think either of those corporates would have a problem of banning individual users, who are only suspected based on the app signature..

	▲	vakrdotme 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree on this, cat and mouse game