2613

CHROME (google) is planing to implement DRM (kinda) into their browser (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

521 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years 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 20 points 2 years 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.

[-] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Until they hit something you need if you want to function in the modern world.

[-] IonAddis@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years 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.cl 1 points 2 years 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.

[-] mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago

ouch that would be painful

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Like what? Bank websites don't really use ads. And I don't use LinkedIn.

[-] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years 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.

[-] skulblaka@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

Hope you never need to read the news, access your bank account, or buy anything online then.

[-] brockpriv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years 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

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

^THIS

[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

If they do that they get chainsaw massacred by Antitrust Authoritys all over the world. And absolutely rightfully so.

[-] MostlyBirds@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Except in the US. We don't enforce those laws here.

[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years 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 points 2 years 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)