And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.
The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.
What the fuck is happening to the internet recently?
Twitter and Reddit CEOs completely losing their minds, and now Google of all companies wants to lock down the whole internet?
This isn’t even close to being okay. It’s 100% bullshit.
The enshittification of the internet shall continue.
We will fight and we will lose, as depressing as it sounds. The vast majority of people just don’t and won’t care.
If you don’t want to see ads, pay for the services or use services that do not force you to download unwanted data (ads) on your computer. It’s that simple.
Lol, I’m a paying Google One customer but that doesn’t stop them from shoving ads through my throat.
Yes, but my point is: even when you’re a paying customer, companies will still try to track you.
Another example: TV streaming service Molotov won’t work if you block tracking, even though you are subscribed!
Geez this would suck but as with other drm I’m sure the de-drm plug-in would follow
I’m afraid that browsers supporting this DRM would also block attempts to break it and that browsers that do not support it get blocked by websites using it
I haven’t thought this through, but if you had a headless browser acting as a proxy, couldn’t that pass the un-drm HTML & other resources to your actual browser?
I guess the drm stuff would be embedded in the js so it would have to block all js, so this wouldn’t work for the majority of the modern web.
Yes and no. Yes because the process would work in theory. No because the attestor (supposedly the OS?) wouldn’t attest your “headless proxy browser” as legitimate client.
Using a proxy would move the battlefield to how to trick the attestor. But realistically the whole thing will go down this route anyway. It’s another arms race. At the very end they’ll require cryptographic chips soldered into your device which make sure you’re not sideloading any software before running the OS, which would allow you to trick the legitimate attestor of the OS.
Can someone explain how the server is going to know whether or not the client browser is showing the ad? A stealthy browser would say, “hey yeah send that ad so I can render it to the user” and the server says, “yeah ok” and then <doesntRenderAdOnClientDevice>. How is the server going to know whether the ad is displayed or not? Don’t current gen adblockers not even retrieve the asset? If the asset was retrieved but not displayed, how (if even) can this be monitored?
The point of the proposal is to allow servers to be sure the software (ie browser) running on the device is what it says it is, and take away the ability to spoof what browser you’re running (which is currently fairly trivial).
So if someone makes a browser that doesn’t allow adblockers and always shows ads, the server can do things like only serve content to that browser.
I guess Do No Harm is going really well
