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

  • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, you don’t have much of a choice. If a lot of websites start using this implementation, Firefox will have no choice but to implement this, otherwise a lot of websites will be broken.

    • eleitl@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have a choice of not using these sites nor enabling antifeatures like DRM support in Firefox now or likely its libre future forks.

      Sticking to free/libre has been good to me in the last 30 years. I don’t intend to change that.

      • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        I personally switch between IceCat and LibreWolf occasionally which I believe will cut out this feature, but if Chrome implements this feature, expect Firefox to follow suit within a couple of months once usage ramps up on platforms like Nflx etc

        I will not back down, as the fight for a free internet is important to me, but it is not important to Firefox, before everything else, Firefox wants higher userbase to earn more money.

        • eleitl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, Mozilla has been slowly taken over, so the time where I could stick to stock Firefox is drawing to a close. I think a useful community supported fork will emerge by that time.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s to hoping Firefox won’t implement it. But I’ll understand if they do, though I’ll then switch to some fork.

      • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re the minority, if this gets implemented it’s endgame. Try convincing the billions of people who already don’t care enough to use Firefox to protect their privacy to now stop using Chrome because it’s killing the open web. Now tell them to stop using services they care about because DRM is bad.

        At this point our only real hope is the EU decides to forcibly stop this, but I’m not holding my breath.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s endgame for old WWW. Well, maybe Gemini will have its market glory moment, though commercialization is explicitly what its creators and users don’t want.

              • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is neat, but this decidedly a niche product with very limited application. I’m an old hat and I can’t see the inherent value proposition in this, why is this better than static pages with hyperlinks? That doesn’t and frankly shouldn’t require a whole new protocol and client. That’s what HTTP and HTML were originally built for.

                • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It is static pages with hyperlinks, only in a different protocol. It’s supposed to be like upgraded Gopher with some good things from modernity and HTTP.

                  Static pages with hyperlinks have evolved into a certain horror we all know. One of the stated goals is that Gemini is not extensible by design. It’s not intended to easily grow additional features, even server-side theming of pages.

                  Why new protocol and clients - because of control. It’s a small protocol, clients are simple, they don’t need all the sandboxing and interpreting and DOM that web browsers have.

                  • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Static pages with hyperlinks have evolved into a certain horror we all know.

                    Why couldn’t this just be a webring of sites following a specific design philosophy?

                    This is a neat idea, but the requirement of installing a whole new piece of software just to decide if it’s worth exploring is already a non-starter.

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

                  Because HTTP and HTML are already stretched out to be broken resulting in the internet you know. Gemini protocol, on the other hand, starts from scratch with the idea to be limited by design on what it can possibly do, so as to remove the most common commercial enshittification cases as early as possible.

                  • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure you could make the argument that HTML has too much going on, but you don’t have to use all of that. It is still at its core just as capable of rendering plaintext and hyperlinks as it was the day it was originally conceived.

                    Why couldn’t this just be a webring of sites that are following a specific design philosophy. I don’t understand the requirement of an entirely new language, protocol, and client. You’re not executing the goal in any way than what is already possible, and you’re cutting yourself off from being accessible by the vast majority of people by requiring them to install a whole new piece of software just to see if this idea is worth exploring.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, I’ve made the point yesterday that it’s unfair if another person expects me to always use what’s convenient for them, but never returns the favor. And that there’s no desktop client for WhatsApp for Linux, and that my wrists are bad with touchscreens, and that Meta are bad guys.

          It was unexpected, but this worked and I now have some XMPP contacts, relatives, of course, who else would listen to me on that.

          • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I had no problem convincing relatives to use Signal, I am still required to have WhatsApp because every workplace requires it.

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

              Same, but the trick is to force workplace to pay it and deal with it. During the three years I was freelancing I had four company phones at home and had to pay for none of them, other than battery rechargings (and that’s when I ever brought them home; on weekends I just powered them off and left them in the garage).