• sci@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          1 year ago

          if google microsoft and apple support it, that already covers over 90% of the market

          • Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            that’s exactly what people said with manifest V3 then all the sudden they were getting strikes on youtube for having their ad blocker on

            • AceSLS@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              And how well did that work out? I personally haven’t gotten any strike on youtube, using uBlock/mpv on PC, Youtube Revanced on mobile and SmartTube for TV since forever

              Also there’s this https://invidious.io/. So yeah, it’s just the classic cat & mouse game that has been going on for ever since software added drm

              • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                Google has already lashed out at Invidious though, and they’ll keep trying

                I agree that in most cases people can find workarounds, but I don’t think we should take these things for granted

                • AceSLS@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Google has no ground to stand on against Invidious

                  They may harass them but it’ll be veeery difficult to chase down all instances

                  • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, I’m well aware of that, but I also have little faith in the justice system to recognize this

                    In any case, it seems like a warning shot from Google and an interest in taking down sites like Invidious

                    I’m not trying to spread doubt, but I also think complacency is dangerous, especially given the history of corporate giants like Google

              • Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s probably a slow roll out for exact cases like this one to ease the backlash. I havent gotten any notice like such either but Im on Firefox. I do fully support invidious though

      • HelloHotel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Notice they are DRMing text and computer code, WSJ and malware brokers are gonna really happy, everyone else had their DRM fix with multimedia

        • azuth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ads. To be precise this on it’s own provides a way for servers to be certain of the environment the pages run (browser, plugins, os). Protecting ads or other functions come from servers refusing unattested configurations or configurations they don’t like (i.e. running adblock, running firefox, running linux).

          • spiderman@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            if chrome fully adapts this, this might well be a full blown commerical by chrome for people to switch to firefox. i have been only using chrome only to run our projects locally and test it out.

          • baltakatei@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It should be noted that “being certain of the environment the pages run” requires controlling the client software being executed which requires preventing the user from modifying said executable which requires the browser to either be closed source or, more effectively, controlling the user’s hardware via blackbox verification chips (e.g. TPM DRM). It’s not just advertisers that would benefit but any website that wants to DRM content.

        • AceSLS@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d guess it’s first gonna be used for streaming TV shows and such. After that it’ll probably be used for absurd things

          • spiderman@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d guess it’s first gonna be used for streaming TV shows

            I thought they were already being protected by DRM.

            • AceSLS@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Kinda, but it doesn’t work very well. Using video download manager you can download pretty much every video from the web

              • spiderman@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Can you recommend me one that can be used to download DRM protected content from OTT platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Mubi? Might well as archive the content I watch.

                • AceSLS@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sadly I can’t, netflix won’t let me watch anything on Librewolf/Firefox on linux. I’d recommend looking into getting a good proxy, a Jellyfin server and also the *arr stack (Sonarr, etc…)

        • HelloHotel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Malware, malware encrypts its code so researchers cant crack into it and antivirus cant anilize it. Google is accedentally sponsoring malware

    • pizzahoe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some fucking greedy cunts at Google having a vision of internet being accessible only by “approved”(Chrome) browsers/clients.

      • Zeth0s@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        1 year ago

        They want to approve the whole environment, including os, even if virtualized or not

        • kevincox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          The whole stack will need to be approved. approved browser running on approved OS on approved hardware. Good luck browsing on Linux. The end of user software choice.

    • Goodie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      V3 manifest got too much bad press so they had to hinder it’s ability to gimp ad block.

      So now their trying another approach, this time they will probably develop and push this proposal out, and have multiple adopters before anyone can do anything about it. See also: WebHID.

    • shrugal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A system for websites to request a proof of the “integrity” of a user’s browser and underlying OS/hardware, and “attesters” to check this “integrity” and provide the proof. If that sounds vague, that’s because it is. What “integrity” means is for the “attester” to decide.

      Google would of course be one of the major “attesters”, and could just deny the proof if you installed an ad blocker or VPN for example. In this case you would likely not be able to access the website anymore, because your device is deemed as “untrustworthy”.

      So it’s a way for big companies to decide who can still use big parts of the internet and who can’t, based on whether it would make them money.

    • grue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Orwellian doublespeak for DRMing and paywalling the web.

        • Orwell was never refering to the economics in 1984. It was a dystopia of an autocratic government in an ever autocratic world, that fully infected and controlled every aspect of everyones life. Whether that is for capitalism, or communism wasn’t part of it.

          Also free capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently unfree and the less regulated it gets, the more imprisoning it becomes to the normal people.

      • spiderman@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        can you explain this further? what does this integrate that’s not yet integrated in web?

        • deejay4am@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          It makes sure you’re running an approved browser with an approved OS on approved hardware and Google controls it all.

          Basically, say goodbye to Adblock, video downloaders, startup search engines, accessibility tools, and Linux.