1411
Mozilla officially opposes Web Enviroment Integrity API (DRM for web pages proposal from Google) (github.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 174 points 3 years ago* (14 children)

I feel like I've been forced to switch a lot of my default applications lately based on shitty decisions from tone deaf companies. I guess I'm going to move from Brave to Firefox finally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Why did you chose Brave to begin with? Serious question, not being snarky. I tried it for a day and it just didn't compete with Firefox + uBlock Origin in any meaningful way. I don't see the appeal of bundling advanced security and filtering tools with the browser, it's better if they're separate entities, keeps everyone honest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    I've taught multiple people in my life to use brave. The vast majority of end users simply can't be bothered to install a plugin or understand how to manage it when a site breaks. Brave makes it just a little more intuitive for them and means less IT calls for me. Firefox with ublock is what I personally use. Brave is what my family uses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • [–] 113 points 3 years ago

    Extremely common Firefox W

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 103 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Stop using chrome. Absolute cancer of a browser

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
    load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 95 points 3 years ago (18 children)

    If this DRM can force you to use Chromium to display a webpage or content, that would be the most anticompetitive thing in recent times, and would absolutely not fly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 78 points 3 years ago (17 children)

    That's why they want to make it a web standard, so they can just blame Firefox and others for not following the standard and avoid EU fines.

    That's what Microsoft did with their office document standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah, the sad thing here is that if Apple comply, it will basically become a standard and there's nothing that Firefox or anything else can do about it. If they can get it on iPhone, it's game over. Half the web will be blocked unless you agree to see adverts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If they can get it on iPhone, it's game over.

    While this is true, I struggle to understand how Apple would stand to gain from implementing this unless it had already become a widespread standard. It's also an opportunity for more privacy focused marketing if they oppose it, just like they do with government attempts to force them to implement backdoors into iOS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (8 replies)
    • [–] 62 points 3 years ago

    Gj mozilla

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 58 points 3 years ago (29 children)

    Can someone explain to me the google API and DRM situation in stupid people terms? I’m stupidly tech illiterate but I know that this is a big deal and I would like to understand

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 92 points 3 years ago (22 children)

    Sure thing. With this current proposal, when you visit a website, the site asks your browser if you're willing to display it as intended, basically with all and any adverts. If the answer is no, then you can't see the content, if the answer is yes, then you're likely using Chrome or a Chromium based browser and Google can guarantee more ad impressions, because they're first and foremost an advert selling company.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I may not be 100% right, as I haven't looked at it in detail, but I think it's even a bit more than that. Since the way that's proven is by the browser vendor signing the request (I assume with an HTTP header or something), you could also verify it's from a specific vendor. So even if Mozilla says, yes, we'll display your ads, a website could still lock down to Chrome. It would probably also significantly hamper new browsers, and browsers with a security/anti-ad focus, as they won't be recognised by major websites that use the new protocol until they have market share, which they won't get if they don't have access to major websites.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 29 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (16 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I bet you heard about safetynet on android devices. It is a service that checks if you run a genuine licensed not-modified version of android. If not - app developer can just restrict you access to the app. It is mostly used by banking apps, but there're many examples of not security critical apps utilize this.
    Google wants to do the same but for browsers and websites. If you run firefox or modified chrome or use adblocks: youtube, twitter, etc. would be able to detect it and can restrict access to the website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    load more comments (3 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 33 points 3 years ago

    I hope EU steps in this time too

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 28 points 3 years ago* (9 children)

    They try to present it as "detecting abuse", but it's literally just "allow servers to block non-verified browers"(in other words google blocking access to their services for non-chrome users(the people proposing it work for google)).

    And as always these types of asshats always shit all over anyone using accessbility tools(or don't even consider them in the first place, which amounts to the same thing).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
    load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 26 points 3 years ago

    People ask me why I use Firefox when other products hace better features. This is the reason. This is the only feature I want: A fundation that helps and understands the user Thanks for all Mozilla.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 23 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    One just has to wonder... how evil can Google become?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 23 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    If this goes through. Will Google become a browser monopoly and (hopefully) get sued

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
    • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Have slowly been switching to Firefox for a couple of months, but the DRM proposal has gotten me to fully switch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 21 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 16 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Fucking US and all their shitty companies. literally a big FU

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    Based and actual freedom pilled

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I still don't get where this proposal originated. It looks like a random user, what's their connection to Google and why do we believe it's even under consideration by the organisation?

    Also, <3 ff

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 20 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No organisations put things through in giant blazing neon letters. One employee quietly pushes a bit, another a different bit and ten bits later we're all like, WTF?

    Google has been trying to ensure they can serve everyone ads for a while. There's a reason the author of uBlock clearly states that the Chrome version isn't as good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's as true as it is irrelevant. I don't think I've heard anyone say chrome isn't a great browser or chromium isn't good - it's the control Google has over it that everyone has a problem with

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›