cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blackeco.com/post/25574
And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.
The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.
It does seem that using Chrome (or Chrome based browsers) is just going to going to perpetuate this. Firefox has never been more important IMHO.
This is why tech monopolies are bad. Google waited until they had a near monopoly on the browser engine and then pulls this shit. Alternatives still exist though, and people will vote with their actions by either not using Chrome or not using those websites that have DRM.
I fear the number of sites taking that hit would be so many that we may feel excluded from the web. It feels really dangerous and we need more people on FF asap to make it clear to businesses that this is too costly to be worth it and they’re losing a lot of users.
Bug: violation of w3c code of ethics issue was opened 15 hours ago.
It was closed 14 hours ago with the status “completed” without further comment.
The guy who closed it posted an entry a day earlier called “So, you don’t like a web platform proposal” on his rarely used blog. It has the appearance of telling people how to critique proposals in a professional way, while being completely dismissive of any communication attempts simultaneously. Perhaps he needs to reflect a little more on his blog entry’s subheading “We’re all humans”, because he doesn’t seem keen to address how users who rely on Assistive Technology are going to be able to use his DRM Web.
Edited to add: The code of ethics is for people who work at the W3c, so not entirely applicable anyway.
You should absolutely have web environment integrity. Your browser should not allow the website to do things that you don’t approve of, so the integrity of your computer can be ensured.
Wait, that’s not what they mean, is it? Oh no … 🙄
Yea, I feel like Google has this a bit backwards. As always, I like to turn the metaphor on it’s head. You’re not visiting a website, you’re inviting a website. You’re allowing the website to use your system resources, bandwidth, CPU cycles, etc. And what you do with your own system is none of the websites business. They can protect their business model on the server side, if they need to. But maybe they just need better business models.
Boosting because this is how we should see websites. You dont visit them you download them. Websites are vampires that must be invited inside to use your system’s resources to do whatever it does.
The concept of having third party “trusted” attesters just screams abuse, corruption, and data selling. What would their business model be? Direct payments from browser companies? Selling “anonymized” data? What if their data security is crap it just ends up being another vector by which leaks and scams can happen? I doubt the average web user is going to understand that all of their data is going to be going thru some man in the middle when they Google something
What about competition? What if attester A has major ties with Microsoft edge and decide to block Firefox users? Or what about smaller third party apps that are made for accessibility reasons? Or hell - what about startups that are trying to enter the market?
The only reason these attesters would be trusted is because the large companies say they are. Theyd be completely at the whims of Google and Microsoft. What a stupid fucking idea with little upside for the end user
Just what the web needed, SafetyNet in your browser. Does anyone have the EFF on speed dial?
Google is fucking evil, and they even admitted it when they changed their motto from Don’t Be Evil.
Let them burn it down for us.
Time to bring back Gopher but with blackjack and hookers.
Just block ads with a local recursive DNS resolver.
good suggestion!
