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
I mean, I'm using Chrome right now, but if they actually implement this and my ad blocker stops working, I'm switching to Opera or something.
Do they really expect to not lose browser users with this move?
All chromium Browser are effected.
Firefox is the way.
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...?
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!
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.
Mozilla already stated that they wouldn't go away even if Google stops paying them for having Google as default search engine.
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.
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.
You wouldn't have access to the websites with a non ' drm ' compatible browser
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.
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
Yeah, if your work uses a website like ADP and ADP starts requiring it, you're suddenly minorly fucked
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.
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.
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.
Hate to tell you this here but Opera is also chrome based........
To be helpful here is a list of all the browsers (according to Wikipedia anyway) that are actually just three chromes in a trench coat.
Such a shame. I love the Arc browser, but in my eyes its days are numbered. Then it'll be back to Orion.
What's so cool about it? Not being a smartass I'm genuinely interested. Their website is cagey and their youtube is talking heads and fluff.
Why wait? Switch to Firefox now
So here's the thing. This web integrity nonsense isn't about locking people into Chrome, it's about locking people into seeing what they'd see if they were using Chrome. The result might be more people using chrome if a website decides to DRM their content and their ads, but if you switch from one Chromium-based browser that forces you to see the ads like Chrome does to another Chromium-based browser that forces you to see the content that the website originator wants you to, like Opera, that's still a win for Google who are more interested in forcing you to see ads for this cause than for you to use Chrome.
The solution is voice objections to Google implementing this, to not use websites that implement DRM, and to not use web browsers that let Google dictate what the future of the web through their control of the Chromium engine
I think the point is if website operators start supporting this you might not have a choice but to use Chrome, if you want to browse any reasonably popular web site.
Then I will stop browsing them? I stopped using Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit quite easily. I can do it with others if they're going to go down this route.
Until they hit something you need if you want to function in the modern world.
Internet Explorer tried real hard to do that. Pages were literally built only to run "properly" in IE.
Curious what round 2 would look like.
In a world that now has stronger cryptography, attestation and surveillance capabilities? I can assure you Round 2 would go vastly different. There would also not be a Round 3.
Like what? Bank websites don't really use ads. And I don't use LinkedIn.
Bank sites don't necessarily need to want to block ads to implement something like this. They will just see the headlines that say "this is more secure" and that will be enough for them to buy in to it.
Hope you never need to read the news, access your bank account, or buy anything online then.
If my non us bank forces me to use Chrome in order to access my account online, they're gonna get a call from me
If they do that they get chainsaw massacred by Antitrust Authoritys all over the world. And absolutely rightfully so.
Except in the US. We don't enforce those laws here.
opera is basically chrome under the hood
use Firefox or its forks like librewolf, mullvad