• @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Also Chrome books, Android users that don’t care enough to change browsers, and most people who aren’t wholly in Apple’s ecosystem. Lemmy users are more knowledgeable about tech than probably 90% of the population. The demographics here definitely aren’t representative of the real world

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152 years ago

    would likely obstruct many existing uses of the Web such as … and archiving & search engine spiders.

    Well, it’s not like Google can benefit from controlling which search engines could send their crawlers to websites, right?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -32 years ago

    Only place where I’m not using Firefox exclusively is mobile, where I also use Brave to watch youtube. Please make uBO for Firefox mobile happen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      A system for websites to request a proof of the “integrity” of a user’s browser and underlying OS/hardware, and “attesters” to check this “integrity” and provide the proof. If that sounds vague, that’s because it is. What “integrity” means is for the “attester” to decide.

      Google would of course be one of the major “attesters”, and could just deny the proof if you installed an ad blocker or VPN for example. In this case you would likely not be able to access the website anymore, because your device is deemed as “untrustworthy”.

      So it’s a way for big companies to decide who can still use big parts of the internet and who can’t, based on whether it would make them money.

      • ThaNookLmao
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        every day that passes we are closer to the day using TOR is not an option.

      • Bappity
        link
        fedilink
        English
        60
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        this is the most batshit insane proposal… I hope nobody supports it

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            322 years ago

            Google alone is enough. Biggest browser, search engine, advertiser, OS and some of the biggest sites on the web all owned by them.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            222 years ago

            that’s exactly what people said with manifest V3 then all the sudden they were getting strikes on youtube for having their ad blocker on

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              122 years ago

              And how well did that work out? I personally haven’t gotten any strike on youtube, using uBlock/mpv on PC, Youtube Revanced on mobile and SmartTube for TV since forever

              Also there’s this https://invidious.io/. So yeah, it’s just the classic cat & mouse game that has been going on for ever since software added drm

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                It’s probably a slow roll out for exact cases like this one to ease the backlash. I havent gotten any notice like such either but Im on Firefox. I do fully support invidious though

              • LinkOpensChest.wav
                link
                fedilink
                English
                112 years ago

                Google has already lashed out at Invidious though, and they’ll keep trying

                I agree that in most cases people can find workarounds, but I don’t think we should take these things for granted

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  62 years ago

                  Google has no ground to stand on against Invidious

                  They may harass them but it’ll be veeery difficult to chase down all instances

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        82 years ago

        Notice they are DRMing text and computer code, WSJ and malware brokers are gonna really happy, everyone else had their DRM fix with multimedia

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 years ago

          I’d guess it’s first gonna be used for streaming TV shows and such. After that it’ll probably be used for absurd things

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            112 years ago

            I’d guess it’s first gonna be used for streaming TV shows

            I thought they were already being protected by DRM.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 years ago

              Kinda, but it doesn’t work very well. Using video download manager you can download pretty much every video from the web

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 years ago

                Can you recommend me one that can be used to download DRM protected content from OTT platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Mubi? Might well as archive the content I watch.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  62 years ago

                  Sadly I can’t, netflix won’t let me watch anything on Librewolf/Firefox on linux. I’d recommend looking into getting a good proxy, a Jellyfin server and also the *arr stack (Sonarr, etc…)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          Malware, malware encrypts its code so researchers cant crack into it and antivirus cant anilize it. Google is accedentally sponsoring malware

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          172 years ago

          Ads. To be precise this on it’s own provides a way for servers to be certain of the environment the pages run (browser, plugins, os). Protecting ads or other functions come from servers refusing unattested configurations or configurations they don’t like (i.e. running adblock, running firefox, running linux).

          • baltakatei
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 years ago

            It should be noted that “being certain of the environment the pages run” requires controlling the client software being executed which requires preventing the user from modifying said executable which requires the browser to either be closed source or, more effectively, controlling the user’s hardware via blackbox verification chips (e.g. TPM DRM). It’s not just advertisers that would benefit but any website that wants to DRM content.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            92 years ago

            if chrome fully adapts this, this might well be a full blown commerical by chrome for people to switch to firefox. i have been only using chrome only to run our projects locally and test it out.

        • Orwell was never refering to the economics in 1984. It was a dystopia of an autocratic government in an ever autocratic world, that fully infected and controlled every aspect of everyones life. Whether that is for capitalism, or communism wasn’t part of it.

          Also free capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently unfree and the less regulated it gets, the more imprisoning it becomes to the normal people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 years ago

      V3 manifest got too much bad press so they had to hinder it’s ability to gimp ad block.

      So now their trying another approach, this time they will probably develop and push this proposal out, and have multiple adopters before anyone can do anything about it. See also: WebHID.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      652 years ago

      Some fucking greedy cunts at Google having a vision of internet being accessible only by “approved”(Chrome) browsers/clients.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          222 years ago

          The whole stack will need to be approved. approved browser running on approved OS on approved hardware. Good luck browsing on Linux. The end of user software choice.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        can you explain this further? what does this integrate that’s not yet integrated in web?

        • deejay4am
          link
          fedilink
          English
          82 years ago

          It makes sure you’re running an approved browser with an approved OS on approved hardware and Google controls it all.

          Basically, say goodbye to Adblock, video downloaders, startup search engines, accessibility tools, and Linux.

  • Chariotwheel
    link
    fedilink
    2192 years ago

    If only Firefox would have a bigger userbase. I still use it, but the vast majority of people is on Chromium.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        155
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I’m switching today. Right now. Because of this post.

        ^^maybe
        EDIT: okay. I think I’ve done it. I’m currently editing this comment from Firefox. I already had Firefox installed. But now I have pinned it to my taskbar. I went to import my bookmarks from chrome, and found that I also had the option of importing other stuff from chrome, too (bookmarks, passwords, history and autofill data). That’s sweet. My bookmark bar has the same bookmarks in the same position. I also installed ublock origin, like someone recommended. And I am going to give it a go. If it all goes smoothly, I will unpin Chrome from the taskbar.

        Thanks everyone for the encouragement!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            502 years ago

            And in fact will save you CPU cycles. For a bit, Chrome had a slight performance edge over Firefox. But once Google got the market share, Firefox caught up and got ahead, and Chrome didn’t invest in keeping up, so Firefox is generally faster. The only exception is a few sites (especially Google ones) seem to be heavily optimised for Chrome, but not necessarily as much for Firefox. If you stay away from those sites, Firefox is generally faster.

            Plus Chromium is increasingly becoming more hostile to efficient ad blocking add-on implementations - so if you want to block ads (generally recommended due to ad networks doubling as paid malware distribution networks), Firefox or other Gecko-based browsers are generally the best bet.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 years ago

              Wait can you elaborate on that a little bit? Back in the days, Chrome was a resource hog which made me switch to Firefox for a few years. Then I tried a bunch of different browsers and found that my Firefox couldn’t keep up with the performance of Chromium-based browsers, which made me switch to Edge. But now, Firefox has better performance again?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 years ago

                It ebbs and flows over time. All browsers will be attempting to improve performance, but at the same time adding features. More features often impact performance negatively.

                Most normal pages are apparently faster in Firefox right now, but Google might make an optimisation effort in chromium that might make Firefox comparatively slower.

                The main pages that are still slower in Firefox are Google sites. Google has repeatedly made things on their pages that unfairly favor Chrome. For example at one point they added an invisible frame that had no functionality over the video player on YouTube. They obviously made optimisations in chrome at the same time so they wouldn’t be affected, but Firefox’ hardware acceleration of videos broke, because the video now had additional items over top that it needed to custom handle. This gave chrome a massive performance edge on YouTube, until Firefox started ignoring completely invisible overlays of videos, just like Chrome did

            • ThaNookLmao
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -12 years ago

              Linux user here, at least on my platform there are chromium alternatives that are far faster, like Brave. uBlock (and now this) are the only reason im still in firefox

        • wootz
          link
          fedilink
          872 years ago

          Install ublock origin and open YouTube.

          You won’t regret it.

            • ThaNookLmao
              link
              fedilink
              322 years ago

              fantastic. Also, just so you don’t have all that “YoU hAvE tHrEe ViDeOs LeFt” BS copy paste this to the “my filters” tab (go to about:addons, click on uBlock, there dots, “preferences”, then “my filters”) and you should be good to go:

              youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.openPopupConfig.supportedPopups.adBlockMessageViewModel, false)
              
              youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.adBlocksFound, 0)
              
              youtube.com##+js(set, ytplayer.config.args.raw_player_response.adPlacements, [])
              
              youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.hasAllowedInstreamAd, true)
              

              Also here is another that blocks shorts entirely:

              www.youtube.com##ytd-guide-renderer a.yt-simple-endpoint path[d^="M10 14.65v-5.3L15 12l-5 2.65zm7.77-4.33"]:upward(ytd-guide-entry-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-mini-guide-renderer a.yt-simple-endpoint path[d^="M10 14.65v-5.3L15 12l-5 2.65zm7.77-4.33"]:upward(ytd-mini-guide-entry-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-browse[page-subtype="home"] .ytd-thumbnail[href^="/shorts/"]:upward(ytd-rich-item-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-browse[page-subtype="subscriptions"] .ytd-thumbnail[href^="/shorts/"]:upward(ytd-grid-video-renderer,ytd-rich-item-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-search .ytd-thumbnail[href^="/shorts/"]:upward(ytd-video-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-browse[page-subtype="subscriptions"] ytd-video-renderer .ytd-thumbnail[href^="/shorts/"]:upward(ytd-item-section-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-browse[page-subtype="trending"] .ytd-thumbnail[href^="/shorts/"]:upward(ytd-video-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-search .ytd-thumbnail[href^="/shorts/"]:upward(ytd-video-renderer)
              www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-shelf-renderer[is-shorts]
              www.youtube.com##ytd-reel-shelf-renderer
              m.youtube.com##ytm-reel-shelf-renderer
              m.youtube.com##ytm-pivot-bar-renderer div.pivot-shorts:upward(ytm-pivot-bar-item-renderer)
              m.youtube.com##ytm-browse ytm-item-section-renderer ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[data-style="SHORTS"]:upward(ytm-video-with-context-renderer)
              m.youtube.com##ytm-browse ytm-item-section-renderer ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[data-style="SHORTS"]:upward(ytm-compact-video-renderer)
              m.youtube.com##ytm-search ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[data-style="SHORTS"]:upward(ytm-compact-video-renderer,ytm-video-with-context-renderer)
              m.youtube.com##ytm-single-column-watch-next-results-renderer ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer span:has-text(/^(0:\d\d|1:0\d)$/):upward(ytm-video-with-context-renderer)
              youtube.com##ytd-rich-grid-row, #contents.ytd-rich-grid-row:style(display:contents !important;)
              

              AND REMEMBER TO CLICK “APPLY CHANGES” BEFORE LEAVING!

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                And I’m just gonna drop this right here for those who use Twitch

                For the first step: Click the Extensions button (puzzle piece icon) on the right side of the toolbar next to the main hamburger menu > right-click uBlock Origin from the drop-down > “Manage extension”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          192 years ago

          If it would help with the transition, Firefox has a first time install option to move over all of your bookmarks. A super cool reason to have a firefox account is the ability to transfer a tab from one device to another. Best part is that Firefox isn’t profit motivated like Chrome so there’s much less bullshit to deal with

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            152 years ago

            Thanks, I’ve done it!

            I found out you can import not only bookmarks from Chrome, but also passwords, history and autofill data!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      732 years ago

      Firefox is awesome now. It was great, then it lost out a bit to chrome, but it’s back to being awesome. If anyone’s reading this and isn’t using Firefox, please switch!

      And importantly, their import mechanisms are great. A typical user can switch with basically no effort. Next time they ask you for help, switch your parents too, and your siblings, and that neighbour who keeps referring to the internet as “the google”. Set them up with Firefox and ublock origin and they’ll be set.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          112 years ago

          The person you replied to was mistaken. Firefox isn’t “back to” being awesome because it never stopped being so.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Well… there is a reason why so many folks sswitched to Chrome. Especially back when Chrome was new, Firefox just felt sluggish and slow. Chrome was a new breeze.

            It took Firefox a long time to catch up. I’ve been trying semi regularly and just 3 years ago it was “okayish”. Tried it a few days ago again and switched all my devices over.

            I don’t know what happened, but I installed it and it just felt snappy and fast. Apart from having some awesome features. Luckily if you don’t really keep bookmarks and such, switching isn’t that hard.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Depends on what you mean by “when”. From my POV for the last few years, it has an amazing plugin ecosystem (almost complete interoperability with Chrome’s), a revamped/minimal UI, performance optimizations, a better DX for web devs than Chrome, and an active R&D (Firefox View, new plugins button, better personalization, etc). I’m missing a few things but those are the ones that stand out to me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      I’d solely use Firefox if jetbrains had better JS debugging support for it.

      So for now I use edge for that at work.

      Also I really like the tab sleep and vertical tabs features on Edge.

      But everything is Firefox on my personal machines

    • smokinjoe
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      I use firefox as my sidearm browser on my work computer, but I literally just made it the default on my personal computer

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1162 years ago

    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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      402 years ago

      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.

      • ThaNookLmao
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            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?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              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.

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 years ago

    Anyone care to ELI5 this for me? This seems like a big deal but I have no idea what it means lol.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    44
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I’m still salty that they implemented video DRM (for Netflix, Amazon, etc.), but at least they’re standing against this bullshit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      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).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Funny how webrips still exist literally everywhere. They built a 10 foot wall, so someone else just built an 11 foot ladder.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          They built a 10 foot wall, so someone else just built an 11 foot ladder.

          That is sir, the beauty of piracy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago
        1. The content’s copyright is technically owned by the copyright holders, not Google.

        2. Copying isn’t theft. Nothing is removed from the servers; YouTube still has its copy. Calling it “stealing” is biased loaded language.

        • redfellow
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -12 years ago

            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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 years ago

      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).

    • SSUPII
      link
      fedilink
      English
      192 years ago

      Without video DRM those services don’t work at all. It was necessary to keep users.

      • Atemu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        Without video DRM those services don’t work at all.

        (x)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 years ago

          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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          “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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    632 years ago

    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.

    • average lemmy user
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      I just hope that google won’t try to lobby for this API like disney does for copyright changes

    • SokathHisEyesOpen
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      132 years ago

      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.

    • arefx
      link
      fedilink
      English
      302 years ago

      I don’t think our politicians will do anything but protect big business, personally.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    This has already happened in the past, and it will unfortunately end exactly like it did before.

    It’s going to end up exactly like it did with WC3 EME, as mentioned in the 2014 article mentioned few comments after the one you linked. This quote from the article sums it up perfecly:

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    72 years ago

    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.