this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
2599 points (99.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53925 readers
361 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

ouch that would be painful

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year 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...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I will stop using any websites that try to do that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

yep that's basically it in a nut shell