3 ms·
You are completely and utterly wrong here. I don't even know how you arrived at this conclusion. The EFF was fighting this with education of the public, proced
by magicalist 12y ago
You are completely and utterly wrong here.
I don't even know how you arrived at this conclusion. The EFF was fighting this with education of the public, procedural maneuverings within the W3C itself, and with invited commentary to the relevant standards groups. Mozilla was also doing these things, and, contrary to what you might assume living in our tech bubble, has a pulpit with far greater reach than the EFF.
But then they implemented the damn thing--which, by the way, is not a standard yet--in their browser.
But, please, tell me exactly what the EFF is guilty of. They might have failed, but that's a very different thing.
- azakai 12y agoThe only way to have stopped EME would have been to get Google and Microsoft, it's creators and promoters, to stop pushing it. The only way to do that would be to affect their bottom line, such as people refusing to use their browsers if they ship EME. That would have been the only campaign with a chance of stopping EME. Mozilla couldn't lead it - it would look self-serving ("how convenient, a browser vendor wants us to boycott its rivals"). The EFF as a respected third party could have. That would have been our only hope.
- magicalist 12y agoI'm not sure how you think blaming everyone but Mozilla isn't self-serving or convenient.
- ewzimm 12y agoMozilla is still against DRM, but it is secondary to their mission to provide access to web standards. The EFF's lack of effectiveness is not a defense. They do good work, but more is needed. In this case, it's not fair to point the finger for a joint loss.