The only one using the word 'dangerous' over and over is the Vivaldi staff writer (picalausa) who ends his blog piece with a piece of utopian naivete "t has been long known that Google’s dominance of the web browser market gives them the potential to become an existential threat to the web."---potential?
Wasn't a real balanced piece but was interesting to read Wiley Google Coyote's latest lamebrained plan:
"The spec in question, which is described at https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md, is called Web Environment Integrity. The idea of it is as simple as it is dangerous. It would provide websites with an API telling them whether the browser and the platform it is running on that is currently in use is trusted by an authoritative third party (called an attester). The details are nebulous, but the goal seems to be to prevent “fake” interactions with websites of all kinds. While this seems like a noble motivation, and the use cases listed seem very reasonable, the solution proposed is absolutely terrible and has already been equated with DRM for websites, with all that it implies."
So Google becomes the judge of what browsers and operating systems are 'safe.' Whatever. Google already picks the news for you, they manufacture the search results, they omit everything they deem 'unsafe' already which is nearly everything, labels anyone with a view contrary to theirs under the 'fake'umbrellas, and present to you an alternate reality. And Picalusa's not mad about that?