This code will only ever be installed on my machines by force against my will.
No benefit to any users at all, all benefit only to Google and their Advertisers.
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
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
FUCK ADOBE!
Torrenting/P2P:
Gaming:
💰 Please help cover server costs.
![]() |
![]() |
---|---|
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
This code will only ever be installed on my machines by force against my will.
No benefit to any users at all, all benefit only to Google and their Advertisers.
Question: Firefox renders certain DRM content in containers. Would that be applicable here? (Run unmodified site in container in background, load site content from that to user, and direct the attestor to the container so that the user can modify the site on the front end)?
The point of this is so that the user can't modify the site at all, despite what the proposal might say. Their goals and non-goals are contradictory.
Running this content in a container will not protect you. Just don't even try to adapt to it. Reject it completely.
I am pirating stuffs. They can't stop me. No other websites can stop me. Piracy sites are not going to use DRM. Firefox + ublock is heaven. Using it even for browsing lemmy as I like the mobile interface better than apps available right now.
Most probably firefox will also bring this or they will lose market share further which is already pretty low.
Can someone please ELI5 this?
First they established a new standard for extensions that makes it harder for adblockers to work in chrome, that's manifest v3.
And now they want establish cryptographic verification of the environment so that you can't have a custom environment in your browser, like having adblockers. Similar to how DRM works.
As long as average Joe uses chrome, we're doomed.