• daniskarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t wait to have to download a crack for my browser so a website thinks that my browser is using wei and no-adblock.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Just use Firefox. I don’t understand why people are so hell-bent on using a Chromium-based browser.

      EDIT: I see now that I was grossly misinformed on the issue. Thanks for the replies.

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        63
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Until Netflix decides you can only watch high resolution content via Chrome passing the DRM check.

        Or your banking website does the same. Or YouTube. Or PayPal. And so on.

        Though, honestly, nobody so far came up with any good explanations as to how this DRM scheme inside a browser would truly prevent adblocking and screen recording - my browser hasn’t got higher privileges than my admin user account.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          63
          ·
          1 year ago

          my browser hasn’t got higher privileges than my admin user account

          They’ll fix that. The endgame might very well be you can only run a trusted browser, safely checked by your OS, itself trusted, running on fully signed code from a trusted source, started on a trusted motherboard/CPU, with hardware lockdown that would only boot trusted kernel and embed private keys so deep that you’d need a full lab to recover them, only to have them remotely disabled if anything funky seems to be happening at any point in that chain.

          For now, this is fiction. For now. We already started moving that way with secureboot, opaque UEFI in our systems and TPM modules. The only saving grace is that they currently all have flaws.

          • Caoldence222@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            yeah the goal is that the browser verifies the OS and itself and reports back that it’s running in a “secure” (ie, not user controlled) environment

        • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, you can just literally read the Google DRM github repo and it’ll tell you everything you need to know about how bad this is for the free internet.

            • DrM@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That has nothing to do with Chromium, but Edge being the only browser integrated into your system enough to use the DRM of your chipset.

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

            On edge and Piracy, you mean. ;)

            I don’t, myself, use Edge.

            I also don’t do piracy, but downloading Edge sure looks less convenientn every day…

        • Final Remix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Vudu, Hulu, and I’m sure others already prevent Hdx+ content unless it’s through chrome or Microsoft’s whatever-it-is.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A few of us sitting and using Firefox while Google is suggesting being able to control what computer you use, what software is installed, what plugins you are allowed to have?

        This is a very big threat not solved by using Firefox.

      • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the browser choice has nothing to do with what Google is trying to achieve with the DRM thing.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I had to adjust a ton of settings to stop it from downloading in the background every file I just wanted to view or print,

          Well, you can’t view or print a file without downloading it.

        • TheQuickHedgehog@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Despite turning off settings to open new tabs, every website I open browsing on mobile opens a new tab

          That shouldn’t happen, I’ve just set Homepage > Opening screen to last tab and when I open firefox it defaults to the last tab that I was on before exiting the browser

          I had to adjust a ton of settings to stop it from downloading in the background every file I just wanted to view or print

          Iirc its just setting browser.download.open_pdf_attachments_inline to true at about:config

        • Qualanqui@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Give Vivaldi a try, it’s a chromium fork but with a strong focus on privacy.

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, after this latest stunt by Google and Brave’s growing list of issues, I recently switched to Firefox myself. It was actually surprisingly less painful than it was switching from Chrome to Brave.

        • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough, you have an opinion, that firefox is wrong in everything it does, it’s not valid, but you need to learn the defaults. Be well.

          • areyouevenreal@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough, you have an opinion, that firefox is wrong in everything it does

            That’s not what they are saying though. A lot of this is configurable for a reason.

            but you need to learn the defaults

            I don’t think that they do. They have see. They don’t like the defaults and it’s their right to change them. That’s the whole point of configurable FOSS ffs.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right. I mean there’s always going to be a way. Your open source browser can run a spoof of an “official” browser, present itself as a valid user, load the page with all the ads and tracking in a sandbox in between, strip all of it out and serve you the actual content.

      Or maybe people will eventually be fed up and we’ll start our own internet completely out of corporate control.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your open source browser can run a spoof of an “official” browser

        Not if the server requires the digital signature of a challenge to be produced by a key whose certificate is signed by a “trusted” third party, said third party only providing that key at runtime, if your browser can also provide the same kind of authorization from the OS, itself being only able to produce it if it can safely determine that it’s running on completely locked-down hardware AND having online-activated DRM tells him he can provide such key; the hardware itself requiring constant online connexion to ensure it’s “authorized”, and including yet another layer of keys in hardware.

        There’s been progress toward this kind of things. At every step, people warning about the risks are seen as lunatics. SecureBoot preventing booting a custom kernel? No problem, microsoft will sign your keys. TPM not delivering keys to non-trusted kernels? No problem, just don’t use it (and don’t get the keys, obviously). UEFI requiring digital signature to be flashed? It’s for your safety, but we won’t give you the keys or it would defeat the purpose. Embedded CPU inside your CPU running opaque code on every operation you do? Trust me bro, there’s no problem here.

        Sure, opensource (or even just open at this point) alternative will most likely remain available as a niche, but once all major services that people want requires such a chain of control, the vast majority of people will gladly flock to locked-down system. Heck, it’s already happening. Nowadays I can’t even log into my bank website without a trusted iOS or Android device. The “free, open” alternative will be rare, expensive, and only work for people that cares. Which is not too much sadly.

          • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They’re talking about piracy.

            And if the only choice becomes between privacy and piracy, well, I can’t be saying which I would choose, matey. Avast!

            Edit: To be clear, I be a sailor of the highest moral fibre - not inclined to pillaging, or looting. But each new DRM thingamajig sets me a wee bit more sympathetic to them what do.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The web is already decentralized. Always was. It’s the people that want centralized services for convenience, and some of these services have valid reasons to be centralized. Web3 have nothing to do with any of this.

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Domains aren’t, and that’s a large part of the web. ICANN, a single company, controls all domains, and you have to apply to be a registry with that one company, and don’t get me started on ‘premium’ domains.

            • Caoldence222@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              ICANN is at least a nonprofit, and theoretically controlled by multiple stakeholders. And it doesn’t really hold all the power from a technical perspective, their power only works as long as all the global network operators comply with what they ask. They are a coordinating body more than anything