Funny thing about that. From the article:

> Google says: "The browser must identify itself clearly in the User-Agent. The browser must not try to impersonate another browser like Chrome or Firefox." We cannot comply with this because user agent spoofing is required for compatibility with various Google websites.

The author is concerned that Google will become increasingly aggressive about detecting alternate browsers, since it's clearly against the rules and they certainly have the capability.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that Google saying "the browser must not try to impersonate another browser" is a fairly funny part in itself.

Everyone remembers the User-Agent for Chrome starts with "Mozilla/5.0" right? It has always impersonated another browser for compatibility reasons. For so long that we take this for granted now.

Yes, this! Here's my favorite send-up of the history of the User-Agent header (hard to believe it was already 12 years ago(!) when it first made me laugh)

https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/comment-pa...

Make sure every alternate browser has accessibility specific features. Then smack them down with the ADA.

Actually, when I was reading Google's blog post, this rule jumped out to me:

> The browser must not provide automation features. This includes scripts that automate keystrokes or clicks, especially to perform automatic sign-ins.

Automating keystrokes and/or clicks could absolutely be necessary for accessibility.

Doesn't Chrome itself provide automation features that are used by integration testing frameworks?

yes it does.

Sounds like they're worried about fake ad clicks.

What does logging into google have to do with fake adclicks?

The ad clickspam system uses the logged in user (or lack of) as a strong signal.

Thanks.

...until they introduce browser fingerprinting to prevent such shenanigans. I'm sure they already have the infrastructure/code in place, given that they also run recaptcha.