this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
572 points (99.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55057 readers
188 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProtonBadger@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, those of us who care all say that but I for one have to access government and banking websites in several countries, if they implement this I have no choice. This abomination must be prevented in the first place.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can use Chrome for those websites if they completely break, and Firefox for everything else.

Banks and government websites don't tend to have adverts.

[–] PostingInPublic@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Do you require ad blockers with these? This use case sounds like the intention of the feature, not like the perversion we're headed for now.

[–] glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

We can criticize the EU, but they would not allow or force people to install Chrome in order to access government web sites.