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

      • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t use websites that require that shit and would likely Report them to the Cartel Office for that practice.

        Its absolutely impossible to do that to the entire internet anyway.

        • InternationalBastard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not to the whole internet, but to important websites. I have no doubt you wouldn’t use those websites, but a person who is in the fediverse is already not the average user

            • mikezila@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              To be fair I only do work from a work computer, and my work computer already has a ton of shit on it I’d never use in my personal life.

            • rastilin@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it became a thing, I’d keep an older machine around just for accessing stuff like that. How much is a second hand craptop these days, like $400, not nothing, but not a huge amount.

      • GordonFremen@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve never been unable to access a site on Firefox due to DRM. There is a prompt asking to run DRM-enabled media, but that’s it.

        Edit: or is there something about Manifest v3 that will get Firefox blocked somehow? IDK how as I would think it would be easy to pretend to be compliant.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Click the Github link in the original post. Google has an RFC open right now about “web integrity” about ensuring users don’t modify the content they see. They claim it’s not to block plugins but… It’s hard to think what else they could possibly be thinking of.

    • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d like to believe this, and I use Librewolf as my daily driver, so yeah, Firefox woo and all that. But Google is one of Mozilla’s primary funders…how long before y’know, they tell Mozilla to cut that whole Manifest v2 shit out…?

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US should break apart huge companies like google. Google in particular has WAY more power to shape the internet than any one company should have. Death to google!

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree on the first part, disagree on the second. I don’t want google to die, they have created some amazing products. I do want Google to be broken up though and for the various entities created from that to rethink about how to monetize the web. It simply can’t only be advertisements and harvesting user data.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And I’ll admit that does provide some level of reassurance. I do worry about Google pulling strings though. I suspect they keep funding Firefox not to promote their search engine as default, but rather to ensure they’re not called out as being a blatant monopoly in the Web Browser ecosystem.

        • nintendiator@feddit.cl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But that’s just that — speak. Not any sort of contractual committment.

          And honestly, I get it. Why would the CEO be interested in keeping the company open if they stop receiving their Google raises? Just torch the franchise and run, like others even pre-Elon have done before.