looks like rendering adblockers extensions obsolete with manifest-v3 was not enough so now they try to implement DRM into the browser giving the ability to any website to refuse traffic to you if you don’t run a complaint browser ( cough…firefox )

here is an article in hacker news since i’m sure they can explain this to you better than i.

and also some github docs

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    1125·
    1 year ago

    I mean, I’m using Chrome right now, but if they actually implement this and my ad blocker stops working, I’m switching to Opera or something.

    Do they really expect to not lose browser users with this move?

        • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
          212·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t use websites that require that shit and would likely Report them to the Cartel Office for that practice.

          Its absolutely impossible to do that to the entire internet anyway.

          • InternationalBastard@lemmy.world
            9·
            1 year ago

            Not to the whole internet, but to important websites. I have no doubt you wouldn’t use those websites, but a person who is in the fediverse is already not the average user

              • mikezila@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                7·
                1 year ago

                To be fair I only do work from a work computer, and my work computer already has a ton of shit on it I’d never use in my personal life.

              • rastilin@kbin.social
                1·
                1 year ago

                If it became a thing, I’d keep an older machine around just for accessing stuff like that. How much is a second hand craptop these days, like $400, not nothing, but not a huge amount.

        • GordonFremen@lemmy.zip
          32·
          1 year ago

          I’ve never been unable to access a site on Firefox due to DRM. There is a prompt asking to run DRM-enabled media, but that’s it.

          Edit: or is there something about Manifest v3 that will get Firefox blocked somehow? IDK how as I would think it would be easy to pretend to be compliant.

          • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
            5·
            1 year ago

            Click the Github link in the original post. Google has an RFC open right now about “web integrity” about ensuring users don’t modify the content they see. They claim it’s not to block plugins but… It’s hard to think what else they could possibly be thinking of.

      • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
        52·
        1 year ago

        I’d like to believe this, and I use Librewolf as my daily driver, so yeah, Firefox woo and all that. But Google is one of Mozilla’s primary funders…how long before y’know, they tell Mozilla to cut that whole Manifest v2 shit out…?

        • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
          4·
          1 year ago

          The US should break apart huge companies like google. Google in particular has WAY more power to shape the internet than any one company should have. Death to google!

          • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
            21·
            1 year ago

            I agree on the first part, disagree on the second. I don’t want google to die, they have created some amazing products. I do want Google to be broken up though and for the various entities created from that to rethink about how to monetize the web. It simply can’t only be advertisements and harvesting user data.

          • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
            21·
            1 year ago

            And I’ll admit that does provide some level of reassurance. I do worry about Google pulling strings though. I suspect they keep funding Firefox not to promote their search engine as default, but rather to ensure they’re not called out as being a blatant monopoly in the Web Browser ecosystem.

          • nintendiator@feddit.cl
            11·
            1 year ago

            But that’s just that — speak. Not any sort of contractual committment.

            And honestly, I get it. Why would the CEO be interested in keeping the company open if they stop receiving their Google raises? Just torch the franchise and run, like others even pre-Elon have done before.

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.worldEnglish
      171·
      1 year ago

      I think the point is if website operators start supporting this you might not have a choice but to use Chrome, if you want to browse any reasonably popular web site.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        222·
        1 year ago

        Then I will stop browsing them? I stopped using Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit quite easily. I can do it with others if they’re going to go down this route.

          • IonAddis@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            Internet Explorer tried real hard to do that. Pages were literally built only to run “properly” in IE.

            Curious what round 2 would look like.

            • nintendiator@feddit.clEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              In a world that now has stronger cryptography, attestation and surveillance capabilities? I can assure you Round 2 would go vastly different. There would also not be a Round 3.

            • flop_leash_973@lemmy.worldEnglish
              9·
              1 year ago

              Bank sites don’t necessarily need to want to block ads to implement something like this. They will just see the headlines that say “this is more secure” and that will be enough for them to buy in to it.

          • brockpriv@sh.itjust.works
            21·
            1 year ago

            If my non us bank forces me to use Chrome in order to access my account online, they’re gonna get a call from me

          • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            5·
            1 year ago

            If we break their fingers in all EU countrys, yours won’t even have to act… Like we could technically ban all website and browsers doing that from the entire market for this practice…

            I don’t think they would like us to do so…

      • manbart@kbin.social
        7·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. If this comes to pass, you’re still free to run an “unattested” browser if you want, but web sites are going to require it “for security” to make sure you are using an “untampered” with browser (I.e. no blocking ads)

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      15·
      1 year ago

      Hate to tell you this here but Opera is also chrome based…

      To be helpful here is a list of all the browsers (according to Wikipedia anyway) that are actually just three chromes in a trench coat.

      Arc
Amazon Silk
Avast Secure Browser developed by Avast
Blisk 
Brave 
Carbonyl
CodeWeavers 
Comodo Dragon 
Cốc Cốc 
Epic Browser
Falkon
Microsoft Edge 
Naver Whale
Opera 
Qihoo 360 Secure Browser
qutebrowser 
Samsung Internet
Sleipnir 
Slimjet:
SRWare Iron
ungoogled-chromium 
Vivaldi
Yandex Browser
        • mikezila@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          4·
          1 year ago

          Arc browser

          What’s so cool about it? Not being a smartass I’m genuinely interested. Their website is cagey and their youtube is talking heads and fluff.

          • a_plastic_bag@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, their marketing and outward appearance is a little strange. I think it’s something they need to work on.

            It just has a lot of productivity features, like having a fleshed-out vertical tab system, built-in split screening for tabs and being able to separate all my stuff into separate “spaces” that I can assign to different profiles and switch between with a swipe.

            Everything in the browser can be accessed from a “command bar” (similar to Spotlight) meaning I can navigate the UI a lot faster. Every keybind (as far as I know) can be changed to whatever you want.

            The boosts are pretty cool too. Basically lets you quickly change the colours, fonts, etc as well as “zap” elements (similar to uBlock Origin) and inject css and js. The changes persist and are toggleable through the UI.

            Also, I just really like how it looks. It fits really well with the aesthetic of my Mac setup.

            It’s got its downsides; being based on Chromium makes it less battery efficient than Orion, which is based on WebKit. Plus it isn’t open source, and vertical tabs aren’t for everyone, but it works great for me (until Google kills Manifest V2…)

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      11·
      1 year ago

      So here’s the thing. This web integrity nonsense isn’t about locking people into Chrome, it’s about locking people into seeing what they’d see if they were using Chrome. The result might be more people using chrome if a website decides to DRM their content and their ads, but if you switch from one Chromium-based browser that forces you to see the ads like Chrome does to another Chromium-based browser that forces you to see the content that the website originator wants you to, like Opera, that’s still a win for Google who are more interested in forcing you to see ads for this cause than for you to use Chrome.

      The solution is voice objections to Google implementing this, to not use websites that implement DRM, and to not use web browsers that let Google dictate what the future of the web through their control of the Chromium engine

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        41·
        1 year ago

        Opera is fine atm honestly. But it’s a chromium based browser too so it would potentially have these issues eventually.

    • mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      4·
      1 year ago

      i would happily explained why that is not the case here but i’m very tired so maybe tomorrow so i suggest reading that article if you are interested