5 ms·
They're going to prevent me from running an adblocker in this "web integrity" environment, aren't they.
by LispSporks22 3y ago
They're going to prevent me from running an adblocker in this "web integrity" environment, aren't they.
- benterix 3y agoNot until Mozilla gives in.
- hdjdndhfbrb 3y agoWhere do you think Mozilla gets its funding from?
- hdjdndhfbrb 3y agoCapitulation in 3,2,1
- LispSporks22 3y agoAs I recall, Mozilla caved last time with EME so I would not count on it.
- JohnFen 3y agoYeah, that was when I realized that Mozilla wasn't really able to stand up to the bad guys as much as we'd hope.
- jeroenhd 3y agoYou can still disable EME if you don't want it. That's a lot harder to do on other browsers. I would probably have dropped Firefox back then if it was the only browser that I couldn't watch Netflix in, and I wouldn't be the only one. I don't think Mozilla can bear the loss of userbase.
- JohnFen 3y agoRight. That's why Mozilla can't meaningfully stand up against these forces anymore. It's not that they don't want to, it's that they don't have the market strength.
- redeeman 3y agothats because mozilla simply stopped having any interest in browsing whatsoever. They now have an interest in limited edition color drops and with their bespoke charactaristic allowing users to select color that best resonates with them. You and I, as mere mortals, may not know what this means, but rest assured, mozilla does.
- redeeman 3y agoto whomever downvoted this, you clearly need some more independent voices in your life, but fear not, Mozilla got you covered: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/independent-voices/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/in...
- blibble 3y agono web attestation for them then youtube, prime video, netflix, banking, github none of that for firefox users
- exitheone 3y agoThe market share of firefox is so low and there are already a ton of popular websites that don't work on firefox. Mozilla will very much be forced to follow along here.
- kelnos 3y agoAnd if they don't give in, Firefox users will stop being able to access Google properties, and then probably others like video and music streaming sites, and possibly even the larger news outlets. Banking sites might get in on the action, being led to believe that doing so will increase security.
- doliveira 3y agoEven if they don't, a lot of websites are just breaking on Firefox. The development community decided they want a Chrome monoculture.
- dhx 3y agoMozilla are proposing IPA[1] which is designed to track user interaction with ads and product marketing, and track any conversion that occurs (e.g. users end up purchasing something). If you are shown a product ad whilst browsing searchengine.example and then later look up the product at reviews.example, then end up making a purchase at shop.example, your browser sends all of these events to an aggregation service that allows shop.example to understand (at least in aggregate, assuming you trust the cartel running the aggregation service) that you were exposed to their product at searchengine.example and further exposed to their product at reviews.example. [1] https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/ipa/ https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/ipa/
- CharlesW 3y agoStopping anything that modifies a page on behalf of the user (rather than the creator or Google) will be step 0.
- gochi 3y agoThey run the largest ad company on the planet, affecting adblockers is always a primary goal for them.
- nintendo1889 3y agoBuy a pixel and run GrapheneOS. That way google looses money.
- Gazoche 3y agoPretty sure that's the main goal.
- px43 3y agoThat makes zero sense. If they ever did that they would lose all their market share overnight, and they know that. Google has always been good about letting people have full control over their devices, despite building incredibly locked down UX. It would be trivial for them to build a Chromebook, or Android phone, or browser that you can't flip into dev mode, but they've never done that, even though many of their competitors in the space regularly lock users out of their devices.
- whatshisface 3y agoThat is what would happen if they made adblocking impossible in chrome today, minus all the people who don't use AdBlock and happen to be numerous enough to be Google's entire business. In a world with attestation, you can't browse any website unless you are using Chrome or another attested browser. The New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents. That is what would make everyone use Chrome.
- userbinator 3y agoThe scariest part is that it's not just the browser --- remote attestation goes right down to the hardware with things like the TPM, so if even one piece of your software is not "approved", you'll be locked out.
- gloosx 3y ago> The New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents. You forgot one thing – once a copy of the content is server to AT LEAST one attested user agent – what prevents him from sharing his copy with unattested users? It is easy to see that if something will make getting the content harder – it will immediately find the path of least resistance. This is the reason any new Netflix title is available for free an hour after the premiere. And the harder Netflix will try to fight this - less time will pass before their content is stolen and re-translated for free. Exactly same will happen to New York Times if they refuse to serve - someone would serve a copy instead of them – because there is now demand created for such copy.
- neop1x 3y agoI am using various browser extensions which make browsing a better experience for me like Dark Reader to make all webs dark. Sometimes I write userscripts for TamperMonkey to add missing functionality or get rid of some annoyance. That all will probably be impossible thanks to this attestation BS. :S