sabreW4K3Mozilla officially opposes Web Enviroment Integrity API (DRM for web pages proposal from Google)
Gj mozilla
I feel like I’ve been forced to switch a lot of default applications lately based on shitty decisions from tone deaf companies. I guess I’m going to move from Brave to Firefox finally.
Moving browsers used to be moved the webpages now…it’s a massive deal now.
jtkWhy did you chose Brave to begin with? Serious question, not being snarky. I tried it for a day and it just didn’t compete with Firefox + uBlock Origin in any meaningful way. I don’t see the appeal of bundling advanced security and filtering tools with the browser, it’s better if they’re separate entities, keeps everyone honest.
I’ve taught multiple people in my life to use brave. The vast majority of end users simply can’t be bothered to install a plugin or understand how to manage it when a site breaks. Brave makes it just a little more intuitive for them and means less IT calls for me. Firefox with ublock is what I personally use. Brave is what my family uses.
Brave is just as likely to “break” a site as uBO, what do they do then?
Brave has a button right next the task bar they can use to toggle off controls. I know ublock is stupid simple to do that too but the extra step of going to plugins then settings has lost people in my experience.
uBlock has a button next to the search bar, you can hide it, but I’m pretty sure it’s shown by default. It’s 2 clicks, but it’s just the shield icon (which I’m just realizing has uO on it instead of uBO, is that the official abbreviation?) then a big ass Power button. Either way, in my experience, anyone I try to set up with anything other than Edge, ends up back on it within a month because the dark patterns work and they get tricked into it :(
theneverfoxHuh… That’s an interesting idea. Best argument for brave I’ve heard too
Brave is just windowdressing. You cant really get any real privacy in Chromium.
Never heard anything bad about brave privacy, you got sources?
I think this is what has recently turned people against them: www.searchenginejournal.com/…/491854/#:~:text=Bra….
They also in the past got caught using affiliate links with crypto projects which gave brave kickbacks. Scumbag shit. If you want actual hardened browsing forget brave or anything chromium based. Use librewolf which is a forked version of Firefox.
darcy^^^ absolutely.
Brave is also associated with Peter Thiel and if there is one person to get the title of Evil Tech Bro, it’s him.
themoonisacheeseExtremely common Firefox W
WaffleFriendsCan someone explain to me the google API and DRM situation in stupid people terms? I’m stupidly tech illiterate but I know that this is a big deal and I would like to understand
Sure thing. With this current proposal, when you visit a website, the site asks your browser if you’re willing to display it as intended, basically with all and any adverts. If the answer is no, then you can’t see the content, if the answer is yes, then you’re likely using Chrome or a Chromium based browser and Google can guarantee more ad impressions, because they’re first and foremost an advert selling company.
That’s not true - you can still use ad blockers etc as normal.
It’s also not a browser check, it’s a device check. It’s to check that the device can be trusted, like android itself hasn’t been tampered with.
That's equally stupid though... why shouldn't I be able to tamper with my phone's operating system?
You can tamper all you want, but apps can already block access to devices that have been tampered with. This just gives that same power to websites.
... yes, and I am obviously very against giving that same power to websites lol. An app is built from the ground up as a UX created by the company, and that is what you are signing up for when you use an app. A browser should be a contained way of rendering data from some webserver according to a user's preferences. Google is apparently trying to "app-ify" web protocols in order to give themselves more power over a user's experience to the detriment of the user.
It's literallly impossible for there to be a valid reason for a website to be entitled to know that under any circumstances.
So people with custom roms or on various Linux distros would be fucked?
Well with custom roms they already are for many apps.
I may not be 100% right, as I haven’t looked at it in detail, but I think it’s even a bit more than that. Since the way that’s proven is by the browser vendor signing the request (I assume with an HTTP header or something), you could also verify it’s from a specific vendor. So even if Mozilla says, yes, we’ll display your ads, a website could still lock down to Chrome. It would probably also significantly hamper new browsers, and browsers with a security/anti-ad focus, as they won’t be recognised by major websites that use the new protocol until they have market share, which they won’t get if they don’t have access to major websites.
I mean, they already do that by filtering out user agents. But this is certainly a step beyond.
Which is why all browsers cross identify as other browsers. This would make it easier for sites to block and harder for browsers to work around.
bob_wileyI don’t think there is a website in existence that I want to see bad enough to put up with that. If it doesn’t work in Firefox, I’ve got better things to do than change browsers to see whatever BS in on a site that would do that.
A) Maybe not you, maybe not me or anyone else here, but 99.99% of the rest of the world? And when the rest leave, is Mozilla really going to be able to justify maintaining a browser for those that remain?
B) There might not be a website that would do it, but what about if practically all websites with any corporate backing did it?
Thanks so much, I understand now. God, is that a shitty move for Google to pull
Why can’t your browser lie and say “yes of course I’m displaying everything my fingers definitely aren’t crossed behind my back”?
Because it’s not just going to say yes. It’s going to say yes, and then present an unique key that browser made for themselves. Other browsers might be able to spoof the key, but the proposal might have cryptographically expensive to even try.
What about replying yes, then blocking ads?
Your device would return a signature to say that there’s no adblocking software on the device.
And that signature can’t be spoofed? Or the browser can’t be sandboxed and quarantined so it is made unaware of such software, and the software applied retroactively?
People will always find a workaround, look at rooting of phones for example. But they shouldn’t have to. I mean look at how banking apps refuse to work on rooted phones but work in a browser on your desktop without any issues. It will be the same with this. Your device is rooted, we can’t show you this webpage.
janAkaliI bet you heard about safetynet on android devices. It is a service that checks if you run a genuine licensed not-modified version of android. If not - app developer can just restrict you access to the app. It is mostly used by banking apps, but there’re many examples of not security critical apps utilize this.
Google wants to do the same but for browsers and websites. If you run firefox or modified chrome or use adblocks, youtube, twitter, etc. would be able to detect it and can restrict access to the website.
Google wants to do the same but for browsers and websites. If you run firefox or modified chrome or use adblocks, youtube, twitter, etc. would be able to detect it and can restrict access to the website.
SafetyNet is fairly easy to defeat.
If you root your device correctly. Can’t expect most mobile users to do that. Can’t expect users with locked bootloaders to do that. Can’t even expect many power users to do that. A lot of very tech literate people I know that customise their computer OS heavily still don’t want to root their phone.
Only because nobody is actually enforcing key-backed attestation.
Lewis Edwards@janAkali @WaffleFriends I am old enough to remember "don't be evil" not being said sarcastically.
b14700if they dont like your browser you cant view the site , ultimately its gonna be google who will be deciding what conditions your browser has to fulfill to be approved and the big one they wont say outright is adblockers , if you have an adblocker they will not allow you to veiw the site
if they dont like your browser you cant view the site , ultimately its gonna be google who will be deciding what conditions your browser has to fulfill to be approved and the big one they wont say outright is adblockers , if you have an adblocker they will not allow you to veiw the site
I still don’t get where this proposal originated. It looks like a random user, what’s their connection to Google and why do we believe it’s even under consideration by the organisation?
Also, <3 ff
No organisations put things through in giant blazing neon letters. One employee quietly pushes a bit, another a different bit and ten bits later we’re all like, WTF?
Google has been trying to ensure they can serve everyone ads for a while. There’s a reason the author of uBlock clearly states that the Chrome version isn’t as good.
snarfI miss old Google that refused to use anything but small text boxes for advertising. Shit, I saw they actually put an ad in the search history drop-down of the Play Store app now.
Def not a random user, it came from a committee. There’s an attendees list and meeting notes attached to it if you click around a bit
_galactoseHave slowly been switching to Firefox for a couple of months, but the DRM proposal has gotten me to fully switch.
Thank you. You’re only one person, but the world is just particles. If enough of us come together, we will be something tangible.
I've been on Firefox since the Manifest V3 fiasco. I am tempted occasionally to switch back; Chrome has some features I prefer. However, they keep doing stuff like this that reminds me why I left. My minor complaints are worth putting up with.
But seriously, can we get native tab grouping?! Containers are nice and all, but I really don't need something that complex. I just want basic stacks like in Chrome. And the third-party plugins do wacky stuff like load/unload entire groups. Have I missed a better plugin? /rant
itadakimasuEdge’s left sidebar vertical tabs has ruined me. Plz add this Mozilla, and I’m all in on Foxy Fox
KevinSidebery is a saviour for me and very likely you too. I’ve got 1500 tabs just lying there in my sidebar, inactive and neatly grouped together!
Ooooo neat thanks for the tip!
NaNI just can’t stand the sidebar. Would be nice if they would get native grouping (again, they had grouping for years and removed it) and vertical tabs like pretty much every browser has been integrating now.
CondeMgPeople ask me why I use Firefox when other products hace better features.
This is the reason. This is the only feature I want: A fundation that helps and understands the user
Thanks for all Mozilla.
If this DRM can force you to use Chromium to display a webpage or content, that would be the most anticompetitive thing in recent times, and would absolutely not fly.
That’s why they want to make it a web standard, so they can just blame Firefox and others for not following the standard and avoid EU fines.
That’s what Microsoft did with their office document standard.
I doubt the EU would buy that.
I am afraid EU can be too dumb to not buy that!