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
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
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
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)?
No no no Just no FUCK DRM!!!
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.