this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
2304 points (98.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54746 readers
455 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

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

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

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The cat becomes the mouse yet again 🥱

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AzzyDev@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Question: Firefox renders certain DRM content in containers. Would that be applicable here? (Run unmodified site in container in background, load site content from that to user, and direct the attestor to the container so that the user can modify the site on the front end)?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] mawkishdave@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So glad I switched to Firefox at home, wish I could use it at work.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] vewave@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From what I've read, the information they're gathering already exists and can be gathered by the server (browser type, user, etc.) with an added layer of encryption to ensure that information isn't tampered with which is easily spoofed today. Of course, this approach doesn't stop folks from tampering with the web browser directly to inject whatever information (outside of maybe what browser they're using since that'll be tied to the key) they want into the payload but that makes closed-source web browsers substantially more trustworthy (aka not Firefox) to site owners.

If this does gain mass market adoption, then yeah, I suspect it will force users to use proprietary web browsers (google chrome, edge, etc.). Which is a step in the direction that Google wants.

I imagine that ad providers (Google) can also start throwing their weight to force mass adoption by de-monetizing non-compliant browsers, which may pressure site owners to not serve non-compliant browsers.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have never used Chrome because Google is evil. I used edge once to download Firefox.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›