3 ms·

Yeah this feels very much the point of DRM in browsers. I will never understand why Firefox caved. This is 100% the kind of thing they should fight.

by mattl 1y ago

wizardforhire 1y ago
In this day and age I dont understand why there isnt a more successful fork of firefox or a new opensource browser thats more succesful with privacy as a concern. My only speculation is collective lazyness and lack of sex appeal as new technologies have emerged. I’m probably biased as I lived through the browser wars. I guess I’m probably projecting combined with curiosity. I know most of the old greybeards have moved on and those of us left are stuck carrying the torch, but man it sure seems the culture has been eroded significantly. Case in point back in my day it seemed like there was a new browser every few months or so. I’m done ranting, I’ve got kids to yell at to get off my lawn.
- mattl 1y ago
  WebKit seems to be doing at least some of that, rejecting some of the more invasive new web APIs. Why does my browser ever need to know my battery status?
- charcircuit 1y ago
  I don't understand why anyone would bother forking Firefox when forking Chromium is available which is more advanced and more modular. >or a new opensource browser Brave browser fulfills that role. https://brave.com/compare/firefox-vs-brave/ https://brave.com/compare/firefox-vs-brave/
  - throwaway60397 1y ago
    > I don't understand why anyone would bother forking Firefox when forking Chromium is available which is more advanced and more modular. No uBlock is a deal breaker. Chromium is stuck with the neutered uBlock Lite thanks to Manifest V3. > Brave browser fulfills that role Sure, and it's also funded by VC money. How long until the vultures start swooping in to get a return on their investiment?
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >No uBlock is a deal breaker. Why? If a browser is able to performantly and accurately block ads, why should the exact extention matter. >and it's also funded by VC money Which allowed them to properly invest into building out the browser and search engine. >return on their investiment? Controlling the home page / search of a web browser is extremely valuable.
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  Brave is such a browser but seeing as it is backed by Thiel's VC money and involves a crypto monetization incentive for the user (which can easily be turned off, btw) it evokes strong emotions in people who are rightly averse to such things. However, it does do pretty much everything privacy advocates ask for as soon as you turn off a few settings. I use it and would recommend it for people who want a anti-tracking, anti-ad browser if you can live with the drama around it.
- ipaddr 1y ago
  Many forks exist like LibreWolf
  - account42 1y ago
    LibreWolf isn't a real fork. It's a patch set on top of firefox, meaning they are still beholden to any design decisions in the upstream project that can't easily be patched out.
- MrAlex94 1y ago
  I’ve been running Waterfox[1] for over 14 years and it’s as popular as ever. 1: https://www.waterfox.net https://www.waterfox.net
  - account42 1y ago
    And the first screenshot on that website shows Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, Disney+, etc. Real privacy champions.
    - MrAlex94 1y ago
      At the end of the day, before implementing support for streaming services via DRM, this was the most requested feature. Privacy is a sliding scale and the idea that it's absolute privacy or nothing else isn't helpful IMO. If people want that, they should use Tor as nothing comes close.
bevr1337 1y ago
They "caved" because it's a browser for humans and lots of humans stream TV. I don't miss the daily "how can I watch Netflix on Ubuntu?" posts in different communities. Users can disable Widevine in FF.
- mattl 1y ago
  I’d be surprised if close to 100% of those users aren’t using Chrome, not Firefox for any streaming purposes.
  - bevr1337 1y ago
    You'd be surprised if less-than 99% of Firefox users didn't switch to Chrome to stream television? Am I understanding?
    - mattl 1y ago
      I think the number of people who care about streaming DRM media probably already used Chrome at the time of the EME stuff being added to Firefox.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      People do this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44294402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44294402 So they use Firefox 99% of the time and then if they encounter the rare thing that requires DRM they treat it like toxic waste that has to run in an isolated sandbox, which doesn't need to be the same browser they use for anything else. The only other sensible option is to get out the reversing toolkit and break the DRM.
      - bevr1337 1y ago
        It's unlikely we can extrapolate market share and user-base data from individuals who self-select into discussing DRM on Hackernews.
        1y ago
Dylan16807 1y ago
This is the point? Not preventing screen capture?

Yeah this feels very much the point of DRM in browsers. I will never understand why Firefox caved. This is 100% the kind of thing they should fight.

by mattl 1y ago

Yeah this feels very much the point of DRM in browsers. I will never understand why Firefox caved. This is 100% the kind of thing they should fight.

wizardforhire 1y ago

In this day and age I dont understand why there isnt a more successful fork of firefox or a new opensource browser thats more succesful with privacy as a concern. My only speculation is collective lazyness and lack of sex appeal as new technologies have emerged. I’m probably biased as I lived through the browser wars. I guess I’m probably projecting combined with curiosity. I know most of the old greybeards have moved on and those of us left are stuck carrying the torch, but man it sure seems the culture has been eroded significantly. Case in point back in my day it seemed like there was a new browser every few months or so. I’m done ranting, I’ve got kids to yell at to get off my lawn.

mattl 1y ago
WebKit seems to be doing at least some of that, rejecting some of the more invasive new web APIs. Why does my browser ever need to know my battery status?
charcircuit 1y ago
I don't understand why anyone would bother forking Firefox when forking Chromium is available which is more advanced and more modular. >or a new opensource browser Brave browser fulfills that role. https://brave.com/compare/firefox-vs-brave/ https://brave.com/compare/firefox-vs-brave/
- throwaway60397 1y ago
  > I don't understand why anyone would bother forking Firefox when forking Chromium is available which is more advanced and more modular. No uBlock is a deal breaker. Chromium is stuck with the neutered uBlock Lite thanks to Manifest V3. > Brave browser fulfills that role Sure, and it's also funded by VC money. How long until the vultures start swooping in to get a return on their investiment?
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >No uBlock is a deal breaker. Why? If a browser is able to performantly and accurately block ads, why should the exact extention matter. >and it's also funded by VC money Which allowed them to properly invest into building out the browser and search engine. >return on their investiment? Controlling the home page / search of a web browser is extremely valuable.
Eisenstein 1y ago
Brave is such a browser but seeing as it is backed by Thiel's VC money and involves a crypto monetization incentive for the user (which can easily be turned off, btw) it evokes strong emotions in people who are rightly averse to such things. However, it does do pretty much everything privacy advocates ask for as soon as you turn off a few settings. I use it and would recommend it for people who want a anti-tracking, anti-ad browser if you can live with the drama around it.
ipaddr 1y ago
Many forks exist like LibreWolf
- account42 1y ago
  LibreWolf isn't a real fork. It's a patch set on top of firefox, meaning they are still beholden to any design decisions in the upstream project that can't easily be patched out.
MrAlex94 1y ago
I’ve been running Waterfox[1] for over 14 years and it’s as popular as ever. 1: https://www.waterfox.net https://www.waterfox.net
- account42 1y ago
  And the first screenshot on that website shows Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, Disney+, etc. Real privacy champions.
  - MrAlex94 1y ago
    At the end of the day, before implementing support for streaming services via DRM, this was the most requested feature. Privacy is a sliding scale and the idea that it's absolute privacy or nothing else isn't helpful IMO. If people want that, they should use Tor as nothing comes close.

bevr1337 1y ago

They "caved" because it's a browser for humans and lots of humans stream TV. I don't miss the daily "how can I watch Netflix on Ubuntu?" posts in different communities. Users can disable Widevine in FF.

mattl 1y ago
I’d be surprised if close to 100% of those users aren’t using Chrome, not Firefox for any streaming purposes.
- bevr1337 1y ago
  You'd be surprised if less-than 99% of Firefox users didn't switch to Chrome to stream television? Am I understanding?
  - mattl 1y ago
    I think the number of people who care about streaming DRM media probably already used Chrome at the time of the EME stuff being added to Firefox.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    People do this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44294402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44294402 So they use Firefox 99% of the time and then if they encounter the rare thing that requires DRM they treat it like toxic waste that has to run in an isolated sandbox, which doesn't need to be the same browser they use for anything else. The only other sensible option is to get out the reversing toolkit and break the DRM.
    - bevr1337 1y ago
      It's unlikely we can extrapolate market share and user-base data from individuals who self-select into discussing DRM on Hackernews.
      - 1y ago

Dylan16807 1y ago

This is the point? Not preventing screen capture?