- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- webdev@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- webdev@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
I can’t believe I’m witnessing the death of the internet, at least it isn’t going quietly into the night.
The vast majority of people will not care about or even be aware of this. They’ll support it because they just want to watch their Netflix or YouTube. Things will continue on as normal, but with more ads and less end-user control.
It’ll be a problem when people are effectively banned from the internet.
But again, the average person won’t be impacted enough to care. They’ll keep browsing. I’m not saying what Google is trying to do is okay, but it certainly wouldn’t be the death of the internet.
They’ll be impacted when they can’t get online on a gosh darn iPhone because Apple doesn’t wanna play ball with Google
You think Apple with App Attest and FairPlay won’t jump on this?
It depends, if Google’s the only one who can “Choose” they’ll be all “I don’t know about that one Chief”, otherwise… Yeah I’m just practicing wishful thinking
The web is not the whole internet. Plus isn’t you being here prove that the internet is resilient?
Even if Lemmy does fight it and doesn’t accept the fingerprinting bullshit, how many other websites are going to do that? We’re just a link aggregator at the end of the day, I feel like all of the most important parts of the Internet are no longer going to be open.
Honestly, I barely go to any other websites anymore anyway, and I just read the headlines and comments here.
The problem with just reading headlines is that they’re often (almost always) misleading or just plain false.
The fact that this is even remotely controversial is stunning. Like does google not understand its not just home users that use adblock, but also businesses as well? Because google is so fucking bad they don’t understand there are viruses in their fucking ads. If this shit goes through, you think anyone’s dumb enough to believe google will be on top of the virus shit? Fuck off google
You really think they don’t exactly know what they are doing?
They are an ad and data company, you blocking anything isn’t something they want to make possible.
ya, using the internet without an adblocker is a security risk because Google enables scams across its services.
How about they learn to clean house first before shitting on the internet lol.
incompetent company will do incompetent things.
I think the FBI recommends the use of ad blockers for personal safety, let me find that link real quick…
Edit: FOUND IT, Third point under “Tips to Protect Yourself”
Let’s just go back to the good old days when the web worked without JS. That would remove a massive amount of attack surface. Might seem a bit shit without the interactivity, though.
Is there any way to make JS safer? E.g. limiting the scope of its access to specific functions (e.g. visual/DOM changes, posting/querying a server only but no local function), or is it just inherently unsafe?
Is there any way to make JS safer? E.g. limiting the scope of its access to specific functions (e.g. visual/DOM changes, posting/querying a server only but no local function), or is it just inherently unsafe?
There’s always possibilities to make things safer, but that often comes at a cost of features, features that many web developers (or possibly more likely their employer) would hate to see removed or be inaccessible. At least Firefox has done some great things to keep websites separated so a tracking cookie from tracking service A on site B and site C doesn’t quite get the same possibilities to track you as before (IIRC, take it with a grain of salt). But in general I would lean more towards JS sort of being inherently “unsafe”.
You can always make yourself a lot more secure by browsing the web through a browser confined to a virtual machine, but most people won’t do that. And as with IOT, the S in World Wide Web stands for Security.
More like money hungry company will do money hungry things
Ad blockers are more important to security than virus checkers.
thats like an ant trying to punch out a bear, mozillas voice has lost its true power over a decade ago sadly
Even almost literally a decade ago, they already lost a battle that was exactly the same as this, when they made a decision about W3C EME in 2014:
I know of people recommending Chrome (not Chromium) because it has Flash Player natively incorporated, so you no longer have to install it separately.
This serves to prove that the majority of users doesn’t know about either the technical or ethical differences in the software they are using.You may also think of the pirated software the are using,but this is a different matter. Ignoring this marketshare goes against Mozilla’s idea of a web available to everyone, not to mention that Firefox is no longer the most used browser as it used to be a a few years ago and it is therefore forced to comply with this kind of requests.
This will end exactly like it did back then.
hell, i even forgot this happened
Fuck those scummy green bastards!
Anyone care to ELI5 this for me? This seems like a big deal but I have no idea what it means lol.
Google wants to introduce a new standard for the web that will DRM/SafetyNet the entire web
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/
I’m still salty that they implemented video DRM (for Netflix, Amazon, etc.), but at least they’re standing against this bullshit.
I think we need to try to get Firefox’s user base up fast (and the user base for other browsers that are ultimately controlled by non-profits) - if non-commercial browsers dominate or even have 30+% market share, if they say no to something bad for users and the open web, it doesn’t happen. While non-commercial browsers are a small minority, if they say no, services that work everywhere else follow Google / Apple and consider breaking Firefox acceptable collateral damage, and then Firefox etc… becomes an ever smaller minority, so they get forced into things like this.
The trouble is FAANG get advantage by posing an insidious threat - they treat users well when they are trying to gain market share, and invest heavily and maybe briefly offer a superior user respecting product. But when they get the market share to give them the leverage, the switch part of bait-and-switch comes out, and we see them try to take down the open web to cement their position against the non-profits, and make their browsers inferior for users to bump up revenue (enshitification, to borrow a term from Cory Doctorow).
Alright you have convinced this internet stranger to switch
Without video DRM those services don’t work at all. It was necessary to keep users.
Without video DRM those services don’t work at all.
(x)
“Don’t work at all” in Firefox, when Chrome implements the DRM the service insists upon and Firefox doesn’t
and
“Don’t work at all” because the services can’t exist without DRM
are very different assertions.
I think you’re (rightfully!) doubting the latter, but the person you replied to meant the former.
I think they meant it as a “necessary evil” because companies could start implementing their own drm and make everything more difficult to crack. Also without it, companies would not trust it without drm due to the greed.
I am a pirate myself but they have to implement video DRM since the content is technically their’s and you are just allowed to view it as long as you are subscribed to them, and they don’t want their content to be stolen (which they can’t stop btw).
-
The content’s copyright is technically owned by the copyright holders, not Google.
-
Copying isn’t theft. Nothing is removed from the servers; YouTube still has its copy. Calling it “stealing” is biased loaded language.
If I create art, then copyright states that you cannot copy (and redistribute) the art I created.
I’d be bummed out and it would feel like you just stole from me. Now the people I might have sold my art aren’t interested, as they already got it for free. It feels like the work I did was wasted, and I also lost some profits, the amount of which is naturally hard to guess, but still.
Story time’s over. So your 2nd point is shit, and I wish people stopped making that. It’s not biased or loaded because there are actual monetary losses to whomever it is you are illegally copying stuff from, instead of paying.
Anyway, I just pirate because I really just will not pay for 10 different subs to get the content I want. Never. Spotify is great, but as long as movie/tv streaming is fragmented, Piracy will never dwindle.
Just stop fucking justifying yourselves with shit arguments.
I’d be bummed out and it would feel like you just stole from me.
Words have meanings. You are factually incorrect, and frankly, I don’t give a shit how you “feel” about it.
Strictly speaking copyright also means that the copyright holder is the only one that is allowed to either copy the content or grant permissions to copy it, thus any of us making copies of things to be sure we don’t lose access to it are truly breaking that. But I would be a lot more conflicted about it if the system wasn’t like it currently is and it wasn’t almost only big corporations that seem to benefit.
-
Funny how webrips still exist literally everywhere. They built a 10 foot wall, so someone else just built an 11 foot ladder.
They built a 10 foot wall, so someone else just built an 11 foot ladder.
That is sir, the beauty of piracy.
Google already rolled out AMP which is overtly hostile to an open internet and faced zero repercussions from it. The same will be true for this. The average person has no idea what this means, doesn’t care, and won’t be bothered by it. Politicians always side with big business.
I’m hoping the average user will be sufficient annoyed by the lack of adblocking to finally give a shit.
The most valuable sites are already advertisement free. Anyone remaining who implements this standard just reduces their viewers. People will do without or other sites will offer an alternative. The tech is doomed to fail because the consumer is always right.
Average users view the web raw, this will go totally unnoticed by >90% of users. If web-drm becomes a thing then it will be easy enough to block those sites and add them to the list of media that is morally acceptable to pirate.
Is there any reason Firefox or anyone else can’t just draw blank elements over the ads to block them on a separate layer? That way the site still thinks ads are being displayed. Kind of like the browser internal version of cutting out sticky notes and pasting them over your screen to cover the ads.
Firefox could get litigated for ad fraud and these trusted 3rd parties could block firefox from accessing the sites. It won’t work.
deleted by creator
Time to fly the Jolly Roger and find ways to get entire websites, not just movies and TV shows, off the high seas and past the blockade. Drink up, me hearties, yo ho!
I believe that’s the same as uBO’s cosmetic filters. They’re loaded but not shown…
Politicians always side with big business.
That’s not true at all as far as EU tech company regulations are concerned. Examples: laws for GDPR, right to repair, consolidated charging ports, minimum size & pricing roof on roaming data - and related fines for disobeying them.
There is a German ARD Video about Open Source. The EU Parlament is big in with Microsoft products and don’t want to change because they are idiots.
Same goes for local authorities. Munich even had its own Linux distro, then M$ opened a big office in the city and suddenly whole FOSS project was abandoned and everything runs on Windows.
Noone had issues, everything was fine. Everyone was against using Windows in the parlament vote. The president or smth who was part of Microsoft had the full decision and just went with it. Fucking creepy. Humanity was a mistake.
As a Linux user this has got me very worried. Chromium has so much market share that this change will certainly go through, and I feel like Safari won’t care as it benefits them and their ecosystem to have device checks. I feel like Firefox and non standard OSes will almost certainly be blocked on a large range of websites with little impact on total users, not to mention completely blocking ad block and anti-tracking clients.
I think eventually regulators in the US will file an antitrust lawsuit and break chromium off of Google if this actually happens, but until then Fediverse/FOSS and personal websites are going to be the only places untouched by this.
I don’t think our politicians will do anything but protect big business, personally.
I just hope that google won’t try to lobby for this API like disney does for copyright changes
They won’t need too. Chrome is the standard.
Safari won’t care as it benefits them and their ecosystem to have device checks.
Apparently Apple already rolled it out in a previous update, they just didn’t call any attention to it.
People’s willingness to seize every opportunity and monetize everything that was once free and open is truly shocking. Every day when I read about another dogshit attempt to make the internet as a whole a worse place, I’m not even supprised anymore
In our society it’s literally stupid NOT to do these things. If you got rich doing it you “won.” Fuck the general population, fuck “good” things, fuck literally everything, C.R.E.A.M.
I hate it so much.
People need to be paid for their efforts. If you’re not going to pay them, who is? Advertiser are.
i hate that we value and reward greed too. because greed is, ultimately, a stupid bottomless pit that only leads to extraction and environmental destruction.
Whats C.R.E.A.M.?
Cash rules everything around me, a famous Wu-Tang Clan song!
Dolla Dolla bills y’all
“People’s” willingness? That’s rich, it seems you forgot who actually has the capital and power to put this nonsense into place. The people don’t have a say in this matter, even if they’d get loud. The only way to end this and ensure software freedom is to end the thing that is in the way, capitalism.
Firefox Nightly 💙
What I find funny is that Ben or one of his few colleagues that helped write the draft closed the Github page over the weekend because of pressure and promises to open it back on monday or something.
Well seems like that is not going to happen now.
Thankful for Mozilla, seriously!
I don’t think OP had any nefarious purpose in it, but this title is ridiculous doublspeak. Google might have a vested interest in trying to bullshit us about this being about “web integrity,” but that doesn’t mean we have to accept its dishonest framing!
I don’t follow.
The first line of the comment is: “Mozilla opposes this proposal because it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.”
And the proposal is called: “Web Environment Integrity API”
Firefox is ❤️
LB: Que bom que a Mozilla se opõe a essa ideia de jerico do Google.
A galera precisa parar de usar o Chrome e navegadores baseados no Chromium para não dar moral ao Google, que fica achando que pode transformar a internet num jardim murado dele para mostrar anúncios, usar rastreadores e raspar dados para o Bard (IA deles).
:lemmy: https://lemmy.ml/post/2428599
⭐ O Vivaldi também se pronunciou e é contra a proposta do Google para colocar DRM nos sites da internet.
🔗 https://vivaldi.com/blog/googles-new-dangerous-web-environment-integrity-spec/
