Yup, it affects all chromium browsers AFAIK

A question: What is preventing the site using one huge cookie for all purposes, thus preventing fully functional use of the site without also enabling all other forms of tracking?

Is such a strategy really feasible? Adding legislation that a game has to be made operable in a reasonable manner after the publisher discontinues support for it in no way influences this strategy.

If someone wanted to do such elaborate botnet defamation attacks in hopes of getting the game playable on 3rd party servers they could’ve done that already without legislation.

Bots making the game unplayable is a problem, but opening the servers in general would help the problem as private servers can implement harsher requirements for players than official ones usually do, opting to rather make a huge bot-filled cesspool as you’ve already said.

However, this proposal isn’t a general “all games must have FOSS self-hostable servers” proposal. It’s just a “if you kill a game it still has to be alive afterwards” proposal. Whether publishers open servers or not before they shut theirs down is their decision without the proposal as much as it is with it.

Since the game is at EOL it cannot generate any profits

Releasing server side source code opens up a route for abusing the game studio making the game

If, as you said, as the game is EOL it doesn’t make profits, then it can’t cause losses either. Otherwise it’d have to be kept alive.

Since if some 3rd part wants to profit off of running private servers of that game, all they have to do is make a flood of bots in-game and on the game’s communication platforms (eg discord servers, communities on Reddit or even Lemmy)

Uh… If they’re 3rd-party servers then hosting isn’t paid for by the publisher. Additionally, game publishers don’t pay for hosting of Discord/Reddit/Lemmy communities. And even if they did if the game is EOL they’d axe that too if it induces any cost.

This coupled with finding as many in-game exploits as possible can drive up costs enough to bankrupt the studio.

It absolutely can’t. The game is DEAD. It causes no profits or losses. Nothing aboit the game matters to the publisher anymore except for brand/reputation for a possible sequel.

forcing them to release server side source code, which the corpos can then grab and monetize the crap out of

Nothing explicitly forces release of source code, any reasonable server application wpuld suffice, open-source or otherwise.

The “corpos” usually make the games. The monetization concern is minimal since a server for a game isn’t anything a corporation couldn’t make on its own if it wanted, nor is it something groundbreaking.

Since the bot flood can be made nigh untraceable by having them operate out of an unfriendly state (say, Russia or China)

The bots would attack servers nit owned or operated by/for the publisher.

and there’s no studio acquisition necessary to get server side code, this would be a perfect extortion method that’d fly under the radar of antitrust legislation

What does any of this have to do with antitrust legislation? If anything, this would curb the publisher’s monopoly over the game servers although that in and of itself isn’t even an illegal monopoly.

Making a “allow 3rd party servers” update and a basic server application wouldn’t hurt an indie studio much. For beheamoths it isn’t even a drop in the ocean.

The GDPR was enacted in 2016 and came into effect in 2018. The UK left the EU in 2020.

I don’t think they repealed it. And besides, it applies to EU citizens regardless.

Google has its own browser, its own search engine, and provides a somewhat easy method to access the majority of the Internet and does it well.

The problem isn’t that it does it well, it’s that it did it well and it doesn’t anymore.

They dominate the market and can afford to make the search AI-inflated bullshit without any revenue losses.

Another part of the problem is the integration. Some google websites are rendered inoperable on Firefox, while others are made to have a worse experience.

A third part is giving its services preferential treatment onstead of having thekr algorithm be unbiased towards in-house services.

Edit:

Once upon a time the best browser game in town was Internet explorer. Similar stuff happened (actually even less blatant then Google). Microsoft basically controlled Web standards. The biggest sin they did was bundle IE with Windows, at least according to the US suit.

I’d look at it in regarda whether or not Google can get your data (or more somply), do you volountarily connect to Google’s servers: if not (Piped/VPN) I’d count that as being degoogled. If yes (Invidious etc.) you’re still getting the video from Google servers (albeit without ads) but Google still gets their grubby hands on some info about you. By ‘volountary’ I mean if you block connections to Google with e.g. Noscript and keep google enabled (be it tag manager, gstatic, fonts or user-facing services like Youtube). If you have to enable gstatic or tag manager on a few sites because they’re broken, I’d say that’s involountary since it’s not your reliance on Google showing as much as it’s the developers’.

Being 100% disconnected from Google servers is outright impossible these days.

The only correct choice.

It didn’t create the system, and it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

But it does support the system by being a part of it

Yeah. Also, it’s the difference between ads (a very obnoxious thing for 99% of users) and something potentially genuinely useful for a good portion of users like the sign in - I assume the popup isn’t there to annoy us Lemmy users, a large percentage of whom I assume use uBlock Origin and find it annoying, but rather for the ~2-5% of users who wouldn’t bother creating an account but don’t mind signing in with Google due to the convenience (and wouldn’t do so on the signin page). And eveb for us who find it annoying, it isn’t like ads where you’re not supposed to be able to get rid of the popup or the popup being a constant PITA

I think it’s exactly the same as a Doubleclick ad as in it’s a 3rd-party script that adds obnoxious content (be it ads or a signin popup) to the site. I think Doubleclick is owned by google which ironically makes it even more similar than if it was, say, a Facebook popup.

You’re right. I had a quick look on Wikipedia and it seems that 3G is getting shut down sooner due to frequency overlap with newer generations as you’ve said. 2G seems to not have so much overlap so it’s living longer.

I thought "if 2G is still around and is x years old and still isn’t fully disabled, then 3G which is y years old must have at least y-x years left. But alas, I was wrong, and thank you for correcting me.

Most parts of Europe still have 2G service, so 3G isn’t fully dissapearing for at least the next 20 years there.

Ended up a missile