• daniskarma@lemmy.world
    1232·
    1 year ago

    I can’t wait to have to download a crack for my browser so a website thinks that my browser is using wei and no-adblock.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      793·
      1 year ago

      Just use Firefox. I don’t understand why people are so hell-bent on using a Chromium-based browser.

      EDIT: I see now that I was grossly misinformed on the issue. Thanks for the replies.

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        653·
        1 year ago

        Until Netflix decides you can only watch high resolution content via Chrome passing the DRM check.

        Or your banking website does the same. Or YouTube. Or PayPal. And so on.

        Though, honestly, nobody so far came up with any good explanations as to how this DRM scheme inside a browser would truly prevent adblocking and screen recording - my browser hasn’t got higher privileges than my admin user account.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          65·
          1 year ago

          my browser hasn’t got higher privileges than my admin user account

          They’ll fix that. The endgame might very well be you can only run a trusted browser, safely checked by your OS, itself trusted, running on fully signed code from a trusted source, started on a trusted motherboard/CPU, with hardware lockdown that would only boot trusted kernel and embed private keys so deep that you’d need a full lab to recover them, only to have them remotely disabled if anything funky seems to be happening at any point in that chain.

          For now, this is fiction. For now. We already started moving that way with secureboot, opaque UEFI in our systems and TPM modules. The only saving grace is that they currently all have flaws.

        • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.worldEnglish
          251·
          1 year ago

          I mean, you can just literally read the Google DRM github repo and it’ll tell you everything you need to know about how bad this is for the free internet.

            • DrM@feddit.de
              6·
              1 year ago

              That has nothing to do with Chromium, but Edge being the only browser integrated into your system enough to use the DRM of your chipset.

          • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            On edge and Piracy, you mean. ;)

            I don’t, myself, use Edge.

            I also don’t do piracy, but downloading Edge sure looks less convenientn every day…

        • Final Remix@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Vudu, Hulu, and I’m sure others already prevent Hdx+ content unless it’s through chrome or Microsoft’s whatever-it-is.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        322·
        1 year ago

        A few of us sitting and using Firefox while Google is suggesting being able to control what computer you use, what software is installed, what plugins you are allowed to have?

        This is a very big threat not solved by using Firefox.

      • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.worldEnglish
        35·
        1 year ago

        Because the browser choice has nothing to do with what Google is trying to achieve with the DRM thing.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          1 year ago

          I had to adjust a ton of settings to stop it from downloading in the background every file I just wanted to view or print,

          Well, you can’t view or print a file without downloading it.

        • TheQuickHedgehog@lemmy.sdf.org
          7·
          1 year ago

          Despite turning off settings to open new tabs, every website I open browsing on mobile opens a new tab

          That shouldn’t happen, I’ve just set Homepage > Opening screen to last tab and when I open firefox it defaults to the last tab that I was on before exiting the browser

          I had to adjust a ton of settings to stop it from downloading in the background every file I just wanted to view or print

          Iirc its just setting browser.download.open_pdf_attachments_inline to true at about:config

        • Gestrid@lemmy.caEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, after this latest stunt by Google and Brave’s growing list of issues, I recently switched to Firefox myself. It was actually surprisingly less painful than it was switching from Chrome to Brave.

        • Qualanqui@lemmy.nz
          51·
          1 year ago

          Give Vivaldi a try, it’s a chromium fork but with a strong focus on privacy.

        • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
          33·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough, you have an opinion, that firefox is wrong in everything it does, it’s not valid, but you need to learn the defaults. Be well.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
            1·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough, you have an opinion, that firefox is wrong in everything it does

            That’s not what they are saying though. A lot of this is configurable for a reason.

            but you need to learn the defaults

            I don’t think that they do. They have see. They don’t like the defaults and it’s their right to change them. That’s the whole point of configurable FOSS ffs.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      291·
      1 year ago

      Right. I mean there’s always going to be a way. Your open source browser can run a spoof of an “official” browser, present itself as a valid user, load the page with all the ads and tracking in a sandbox in between, strip all of it out and serve you the actual content.

      Or maybe people will eventually be fed up and we’ll start our own internet completely out of corporate control.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        16·
        1 year ago

        Your open source browser can run a spoof of an “official” browser

        Not if the server requires the digital signature of a challenge to be produced by a key whose certificate is signed by a “trusted” third party, said third party only providing that key at runtime, if your browser can also provide the same kind of authorization from the OS, itself being only able to produce it if it can safely determine that it’s running on completely locked-down hardware AND having online-activated DRM tells him he can provide such key; the hardware itself requiring constant online connexion to ensure it’s “authorized”, and including yet another layer of keys in hardware.

        There’s been progress toward this kind of things. At every step, people warning about the risks are seen as lunatics. SecureBoot preventing booting a custom kernel? No problem, microsoft will sign your keys. TPM not delivering keys to non-trusted kernels? No problem, just don’t use it (and don’t get the keys, obviously). UEFI requiring digital signature to be flashed? It’s for your safety, but we won’t give you the keys or it would defeat the purpose. Embedded CPU inside your CPU running opaque code on every operation you do? Trust me bro, there’s no problem here.

        Sure, opensource (or even just open at this point) alternative will most likely remain available as a niche, but once all major services that people want requires such a chain of control, the vast majority of people will gladly flock to locked-down system. Heck, it’s already happening. Nowadays I can’t even log into my bank website without a trusted iOS or Android device. The “free, open” alternative will be rare, expensive, and only work for people that cares. Which is not too much sadly.

          • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            They’re talking about piracy.

            And if the only choice becomes between privacy and piracy, well, I can’t be saying which I would choose, matey. Avast!

            Edit: To be clear, I be a sailor of the highest moral fibre - not inclined to pillaging, or looting. But each new DRM thingamajig sets me a wee bit more sympathetic to them what do.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          161·
          1 year ago

          The web is already decentralized. Always was. It’s the people that want centralized services for convenience, and some of these services have valid reasons to be centralized. Web3 have nothing to do with any of this.

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
            4·
            1 year ago

            Domains aren’t, and that’s a large part of the web. ICANN, a single company, controls all domains, and you have to apply to be a registry with that one company, and don’t get me started on ‘premium’ domains.

  • duckCityComplex@lemmy.worldEnglish
    711·
    1 year ago

    Maybe the thing to do here, when web sites start enforcing this, is to swamp them with support requests. Don’t write a screed or manifesto with ethical or technical reasons why this is wrong. Pretend to be a non-technically-inclined user and tell them you’ve spent hours trying to get it to work and your browser keeps throwing up errors you don’t understand. They will ignore the principles, but if they think the technology is “too hard” for their “dumb users,” that might carry more weight.

    • Hans5958@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think this will work. If companies can get away of slapping us by doing “please use Google Chrome or other Chromium-based browsers” just because Google implements the most niche, probably privacy-last, feature ever, then they will get away with it this time, again.

      • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        20·
        1 year ago

        I literally can’t log into the Amtrak Android app unless I have Chrome installed. It strictly relies on Chrome custom tabs. Other browsers that support custom tabs don’t work.

        I cannot imagine any reason for this except sheer ineptitude.

        Guess what Amtrak support told me when I reported this as a bug?

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        That’s what we thought about VBScript, and Active X and Shockwave Flash, and Silverlight, at different points in the history of the Internet.

        Adobe and Microsoft have both wrecked hard (at their peak) in their attempts to close and DRM the Internet.

        Looks like it’s Googles turn to find out if they have the clout to manage it.

  • TwoGems@lemmy.worldEnglish
    271·
    1 year ago

    So what can we do? Egg their headquarters? Because so far our useless politicians haven’t passed bills to fight this.

    • TheObserver@lemmy.world
      20·
      1 year ago

      It’d help if the government wasn’t run by a bunch of ancient humans that were there when cavemen would draw on cave walls. The government has shown time and time again they don’t understand tech but always try to act like they do. Take that tiktok case for example. They made themselves look like idiots to the USA. Pathetic.

      • snowgrimm@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 year ago

        I think the moment for me was when they had Mark Zuckerberg himself, testify to Congress.

        They didn’t “grill him” as media would’ve liked to have you believe. The guy danced around all of Congress because they themselves didn’t know a damn thing about what he was saying. Of course he wasn’t penalized and got off scot-free.

        Just like every other tech company. The FTC, has no teeth. The FCC, has no teeth. Congress, has no brain.

    • Uplink@programming.dev
      51·
      1 year ago

      It’s already too late. Google has a monopoly on the browser market. Do you think your regular normie would continue to use Firefox if Netflix, Instagram, TokTok etc. don’t work anymore?

      There is nothing we can do. The internet of old is already lost.

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        That is exactly what we feared about Internet Explorer 6.

        The complete strangle hold of IE6 on the Internet is why I posted this from Edge (IE12ish) and why you’re all reading this comment on Edge as well. /s

        It’s too late for Google Chrome even. There’s nothing but IE6, and it will never die. /s

  • tr35y7@lemmy.world
    171·
    1 year ago

    Not overly worried - the EU anticompetition laws will swat this down on this side of the atlantic - but not sure about the US

    • ghostBones@lemmy.world
      5·
      1 year ago

      Also sounds like you’re describing a Chromebook. Which, incidentally, schools seem to be abandoning because of the fact that they become useless on a predetermined date.

        • ghostBones@lemmy.world
          5·
          1 year ago

          EOL. End of life. All Chromebooks have an EOL date after which they will no longer receive updates and can no longer be considered secure. All the software on them, including Chrome which is the core application, become unviable. When you find an unbelievably cheap Chromebook on sale, it’s because it’s EOL is close.

            • ghostBones@lemmy.world
              3·
              1 year ago

              There are mod projects documented on YouTube videos and elsewhere that describe how to do just that. If I remember right, it depends a lot on the specific chromebook and the manufacturer. If I were to buy a Chromebook, I would first find out whether or not it could be wiped and have linux loaded on it effectively. I would probably opt for a lightweight flavor of Linux so as to keep the device running smoothly.

              • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                Yeah that makes sense. Further, you could just get a Chromebook past it’s update cycle for cheap and then just wipe it making the update cycle pointless in the first place. Seems like a way to get reasonable performance at cheap prices.

                I wonder why chromebooks were built with this expiration - was Google hoping that schools would just throw away the old ones and buy new ones once laptop were past it’s update cycle?

  • CodeSalat@feddit.de
    6·
    1 year ago

    One of the four authors of the proposal is on my mastodon instance. How ironic (and kinda embarrassing).