If Google succeeds with the new DRM policy, will that affect functionality of browsers like firefox which uses a different engine?
Mozilla has already posted their protest to this...
Sure, they're against it, but if it gets implemented by Chrome and by many major websites, they won't have a choice but to implement it as well. Otherwise, their browser just won't work and people will have to use Chromium browsers or nothing at all.
Honestly, they could have good grounds for an antitrust lawsuit if this API comes to pass and everyone uses Google attestation servers. It's gardenwalling the browser space just like Microsoft was.
Then don't use Google. I'm slowly but surely working towards degoogling myself. Not there quite yet, but I'm working on it.
^ Free anonymous email, for the B/S that asks for an email when they got no business with one.
Mozilla has been bullied exactly this way in the past into implementing DRM measures I believe.
I already use ff and if there's a site that requires drm to work, i don't care for that site. They need visitors not the other way around.
I don't understand why others like Brave, Opera, Vivaldi..etc are silent on this big of a threat.
Vivaldi has a post on their blog regarding this.
Most of those are Chrome with a different front end...
https://lemmy.today/post/158549
It hasn’t even been a week. They’re responding
You just listed a bunch of Chromium browsers. They don't care.
Yes. If it becomes a success on Chrome, other interested parties will pressure Firefox to adopt the standard as well.
I doubt Firefox will give in. Much more likely is that websites start blocking it until you cannot use the internet without Chromium
Firefox will be in a tight corner assuming every other browser vendor picks this up. They can decide to go against it but Firefox does not live in isolation.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/
What everybody seems to be forgetting is that there is a ton of web-content fetching being done right now which is not done by browsers.
For example, all the webcrawlers doing indexing for search engines.
Consider the small possibility that any major website that does this either becomes inaccessible for any webcrawler which does not implement this (say, those indexing sites for search engines other than Google's) or has exceptions for webcrawlers which are one big backdoor for browsers to also come in (in fact a number of paywall-bypassing solutions relly on sending the right HTTP headers to use exactly existing exceptions for webcrawlers).
Even webcrawlers implementing this are relying on "integrity validation" servers from a 3rd party (I bet that's going to be Google) so think about how Google can interfere here with 3rd party webcrawlers by merelly throttling down integrity validation responses for those.
Oh, and open source webcrawler implementations can forget all about being validated.
(By the way, this would also impact any AI-data gathering webcrawlers that don't use APIs to get the data but rather go in via the web interface)
This is quite possibly a far bigger play by Google than just for browser and Ad dominance.
Only if they proceed AND websites enforce it. The last reply I read from the Googler that was part of the draft spec said they were building in a guardrail that prevents sites from outright blocking non-compliant clients without also blocking a not insignificant portion of their desired userbase.
To me, it sounded like they'd just randomly not send the DRM information sometimes. So, the fix for web sites would be to tell the user to reload until the information is passed along.
Why wouldn't they have no guardrails at all so they can just block non-compliant browsers? Isn't that their goal?
The devs responsible for this say their goal is to detect bots, but make sure it doesn't harm people not using this tech. I'm actually inclined to be believe them. The problem is that those guardrails could turn out to be ineffective, or Google could decide to just disable them at some point.
Yes, because it will implicitly discourage the use of any other type of browser
Sites that implement it will drop traffic which will lower ad revenue which will mean less money.
If browsers that do not implement it gain a higher market share it might have them miss out on so much money that they don't block the browser or not implement the drm.
it's a battle of browsers now and i am happy to stand on the site of firefox.
Seems like it's much more than a discouragement
You know those movies where aliens attack earth and we always win? I think these outcomes are mostly true because I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's nothing humans can't ruin. Whether it's meeting your family at the arrival gate or alien societies we'll destroy it. The internet is just the next thing.
It will affect for some sites, not for others. You'll no longer be able to bypass paywalls to read news, for example, because those sites will most likely adopt the DRM. Some streaming services may do the same, maybe even some social networks. But places like lemmy will still be generally unnaffected.
I really hope they cancel this
All lemmy links to another site wouldnt work then.. lol
How likely is Google to implement this?
Maybe we go back to Peer to Peer?
Centrally hosted websites are perfectly fine, they just need to not opt-in this tech.
I'm sure they will use it on their own products, so maybe it's time to replace google products?
I will probably switch to protonmail when gmail won't be accessible from firefox
It depends how websites choose to implement it, and how other browsers choose to implement it.
If Firefox et.al chooses not to implement browser environment integrity, then any website that chooses to require strict integrity would completely cease to work on Firefox as it would not be able to respond to a trust check. It is simply dead. However, if they do implement it, which I imagine they would if this API actually becomes widespread, they should continue to work fine even if they're stuck with the limitations on environment modification inherent to the DRM (aka rip adblockers)
Websites will vary though. Some may not implement it at all, others may implement a non-strict integrity check that may happily serve browsers that do not pass the check. Third parties can also run their own attestation servers that will report varying levels of environment data. Most likely you will see all Google sites and a majority of "big" websites that depend on ad revenue implement strict integrity through Google attestation servers so that their precious ads don't get blocked, and the internet will become an absolutely horrid place.
Frankly I'll just stop using anything and everything that chooses to implement this, since we all know Google is going to go full steam ahead with implementation regardless of how many users complain. Protecting their ad revenue is priority 1 through 12,000 and fuck everybody else.
It's weird. The internet really seems to be pushing me not to use it these days.
Welcome to late stage capitalism. The free Fed money train is over, time to squeeze the plebians to death.
I feel like I fully lack the words to describe what I mean here, although I’m confident in my understanding of the idea. (Which is to say, please give me charity when untangling my rambling.)
I share your sentiment and I’ve been thinking about this the past few days.
I’ve read in a few places that Musk is trying to turn twitter into a ‘one-app’ in the same way that WeChat is. The common pushback against that is that we already have that - it’s the web browser. The web browser isn’t going anywhere.
But turning the browser into a closed ecosystem that Google gets to set the standard for, harvest the data for, advertise through, and ensure that users are locked in to their version of the experience/data that they collect essentially makes Chrome the one-app.
In much the same way that google killed XMPP, Microsoft used its weight to hamstring open document formats - this seems like an effort to thread a rope around the neck of the open internet and use google’s considerable market share to close off the open internet.
Somewhat ironically, we may find ourselves in search of a ‘new, open internet’ if corporations continue to define our current internet.
Maybe we’ll call it “Web 1.0.”
This. Like for real. I might be in a minority here but but I'm not going to just accept this crap and deal with it. If you implement these changes and your site is not absolutely essential for me then I'm going elsewhere. If 90% of big websites become unusable with my browser then I'm going to hang in the rest 10% with my like-minded folks. I don't care that it's quiet and much more slow paced, it's still better than the shit everyone else is serving and frakly better for my mental health aswell.
I spent like 2 to 3 hours on reddit every single day for 10 years. Then they killed my favourite app and I just quit then and there and haven't looked back. I have no problem doing that again.
Not the Internet, that is neutral. It is only one large corp that is trying to control the Internet. If everyone boycotts them, then they will fail.
I have a weak grasp of this, but a developer working on this responded to some criticism.
If the developers working to implement this are to be believed, they are intentionally setting it up so that websites would have an incentive to still allow untrusted (for lack of a better term) clients to access their sites. They do this by intentionally ignoring any trust check request 5% - 10% of the time, to behave as if the client is untrusted, even when it is. This means that if a website decides to only allow trusted clients, they will also be refusing trusted clients 5% - 10% of the time.
The relevant part of the response is quoted here:
And what happens when they decide to revoke that 5-10% after they got everyone onboard?
Thats such a weird clause to include and is likely just a honeypot. Why even bother allowing unverified browsers to connect, since it invalidates the entire purpose of the trust system? If any bad actor can simply choose to not use the trust system while still having full access, then the system is less than useless for its stated purpose (catch bots/bad faith traffic, ensure no malware) and serves only to decrease the speed and experience of legitimate users.
That opt-out clause won't last a year once it's mandatory in Chromium.
An attestation method that randomly fails in 5-10% of cases makes no sense. It's not attestation anymore, it's a game of dice. This is blatant rhetoric in response to the DRM criticism. Nobody sane would ever use such a method.
If this is the case then what's actually the point of it?
The developers working on this should not be believed and anyone who sees their resume for the rest of time should put it directly in the trash.
Yeah but that can be removed at any time. It's a bit optimistic to think those safeguards would remain when they stand in the way of profit...
That sounds nice but there's no guarantee they'll implement it, or if they do, that they won't just remove it someday down the road. This could just be a way for them to avoid criticism for now, and when criticism has died down a bit, they can just remove it.
Maybe this thing will evolve into two webs. One where the majority using Chrome will be, mostly busy watching ads and reading the shitty sites Google has picked for them.
But another where browsers who don't support this can be. Stuff like Lemmy and forums and other things run by individuals with an interest and passion.
We would still need to use chrome for the official stuff like our bank's or office websites, but there would be another world out there for people who refuse to accept being subjected to this shit. Alternative websites would shoot up and became popular.
Thanks for such a detailed explanation. I really hope firefox doesn't follow through with this.
Mozilla has already said they oppose the idea https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/852
Hasn't there been this thing that told you you are opening a sketchy website for years?
Why do we need more policing, who asked for that?
If you fall for some scam website then it's on you. Don't use the internet. The end.
This isn't about browsers blocking users from scam websites. This is about websites blocking users with browsers that remove ads.
The problem is, is not really possible to implement it in a truly open-source browser, since anyone compiling it themselves (including distro maintainers) would fail the check unless they perfectly match a build approved by the attestor. If it differs from the approved version, that's specifically what WEI is intended to prevent.
https://lemmy.ml/post/2481063
Wanna talk about web safety? Yeah, et.al now comes up as a website link.
Thanks Google! Thanks for letting pretty much any .bullshit top level domain...
calling other countries TLDs bullshit is quite a take
That's the TLD of Albania though
The grandparent commenter should've written "et al." instead. The "alii" is the abbreviated part, not the "et".
Agreed about the bullshit TLDs, by the way.
How is that Google's fault?