Google proposes turning browsers into DRM software for the web | Ending AD Blocking for all browsers

[Erebuxy]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

Because people don't pay for stuff if they don't have to? Like look at what torrents are.

 

I agree.

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

Nah, what's going to happen is "big media" is going to pull the linux rug out from under everyone again. No more websites working on Linux, No GPL-compliant DRM.

 

Iirc, don't we already have something similar for streaming service on Linux? You cannot do HD streaming on Linux. But due the Linux desktop market share, I hardly think it make any impact.

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

No funding? Then it's bad, or you simply suck at it. 

 

Didn't you just say "Because people don't pay for stuff if they don't have to? Like look at what torrents are.". Most of people on the Internet just don't want to pay regardless of the quality of content. I had seen countless arguments on Reddit that say "<insert good content> is good, but it is ok to pirate because <insert big media> is eval". The existence and popularity of torrent sites proves that a lot of the contents are good and people want them, but people still refuse to pay for them.

 

The big picture is that if people are still reluctant to pay for online service, the service providers will continue to align their interests with advertisers.

As a YouTuber Premium subscriber, it is hilarious to see all the YouTube ads discussions during WAN show. 

[Obioban]

How is there not more push back against using Chrome in the tech community? Stop, already, everyone!

[Obioban]

On 7/23/2023 at 5:08 PM, Donut417 said:

I wish Apple would offer it on WIndows. Because I use it on my Mac. 

I use safari on Mac and Brave on windows, and Chrome never.

 

... I wish Apple would enabled Safari to use Brave search as stock. I'm still using it, through 3rd party plug in (on iOS and Mac), but it would certainly be nicer if it was a stock option.

[Kisai]

23 hours ago, Erebuxy said:

 

 

Didn't you just say "Because people don't pay for stuff if they don't have to? Like look at what torrents are.". Most of people on the Internet just don't want to pay regardless of the quality of content.

Piracy is always a question about availability and access. DRM, especially invasive ones treat all customers like criminals, where as the actual criminals will just continue to do what they've been doing the entire time, blocking ads and ripping videos posting them to torrent sites.

 

Now, here's the thing. When I send DMCA's to piracy sites, I EXPECT that they will not comply, so I also send the DMCA to google to make it vanish from search. A lot of effort is spent by myself and by google to take down some petty criminal's upload somewhere.  

 

Some people pirate because they are accustomed to not paying for that content. But DRM for ads seems extremely counter-intuitive when people don't want the ads in the first place. And if Google isn't going to help solve this problem and instead become the problem, People will switch browsers, or use hosts-file/pihole style blocking. Or you know, actually run proxy software and block direct connections to websites.

 

If I can not pay for something domestically, and you, IP owner, are unwilling to sell it to me at a fair and reasonable way, then the next thing I'm doing is checking grey market avenues (eg foreign imports) before resorting to black market ones (counterfeits.)

 

It's bad enough that "please login with your television provider" gets you a crappy 240p version of the 720p video they actually broadcast, when the shows are filmed in 4K.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Obioban said:

How is there not more push back against using Chrome in the tech community? Stop, already, everyone!

The reason I use Chrome is mostly because I was an Android user up till like 3 or 4 years ago. I liked to have my bookmarks and such synced with my phone at the time. Also I tried Firefox but didnt really like the interface that much. After switching to an iPhone and buying a MacBook Id like to use Safari like I said, but Apple no longer provides a Windows version, so Chrome is the one browser I know works across all my devices. 

[Obioban]

46 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The reason I use Chrome is mostly because I was an Android user up till like 3 or 4 years ago. I liked to have my bookmarks and such synced with my phone at the time. Also I tried Firefox but didnt really like the interface that much. After switching to an iPhone and buying a MacBook Id like to use Safari like I said, but Apple no longer provides a Windows version, so Chrome is the one browser I know works across all my devices. 

Doesn't Brave browser work on all platforms?

 

Also, Chrome on MacOS is borderline malware.

https://chromeisbad.com/

 

You can make safari sync bookmarks with windows browsers:

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/icloud-windows/icw4a50de3c3/icloud

[ewitte]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:44 AM, Sauron said:

It's called enshittification

and it's the reason you should never give companies any amount of sympathy when they whine about needing to raise prices or show ads to remain afloat. They used anticompetitive practices to force you into using them so this is entirely their fault.

In an interim step, I went from Cable+Internet to Cable+YoutubeTV.  Prices for streaming have skyrocked so I'm now Internet only with Plex recording OTA.  Plus, I'm at a pretty high internet service since I work off of it.  They just gave me 2 years of Peacock and there are some free channels on Roku with some shows we like.

[Donut417]

24 minutes ago, Obioban said:

ou can make safari sync bookmarks with windows browsers:

The issue is I have found another browser I like beside Safari. I have tried Firefox but didnt care for the interface. Edge is out of the question as well. I need to make sure what ever I use works with all the streaming services and they can be picky. 

 

25 minutes ago, Obioban said:

Doesn't Brave browser work on all platforms?

Ive seen issues with Streaming service. I use my MacBook connected to my TV for streaming. Due to all the DRM and other bullshit Chrome works the best. While there might be work arounds I dont want to have to fiddle with shit if I dont have to. The thing about the Apple ecosystem is using their software tends to work better, because all there products are designed to work together. 

[Versatile]

Shortly after this is released;

Google Chrome Premium only $14.99/month 

[jagdtigger]

44 minutes ago, Versatile said:

Google Chrome Premium only $14.99/month 

Dont give them ideas ffs.....

[Vishera]

Quote

 Browser needs to verify that the User is using a device that is approved by the Attester

So if your PS4 is not on the list then you won'y be able to browse the website on it.

Google are trying to gate keeping people from using the internet.

[Kisai]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:04 PM, Vishera said:

So if your PS4 is not on the list then you won'y be able to browse the website on it.

Google are trying to gate keeping people from using the internet.

Exactly. That is the outcome.

 

Now if you want to be on the internet, use websites that didn't buy in to SSL-by-default. Oh wait, Google already exiled websites with with no SSL from search and instead allows the enshittificiation of the internet by promotion AI-generated SEO shit that rips off the original content creators anyway with their free SSL certs, and nearly-free domain registrars.

 

 

Here is where I see the internet in, oh 10 years:

1) Everything you want to use, Google and Microsoft have to have signed off on, or you will not be able to access it on the desktop

2) Everything you want to use on mobile, Google and Apple have to have signed off on, or you will not be able to access it

3) Search engines will de-index AI generated garbage hard, if a website popped up on the internet after 2018, it will disappear. You can not trust website put on the internet if it didn't exist in 1999.

4) People will launder content that is DRM-encumbered hard. New movie? Some idiot will run the entire movie through Whisper, transcribe the entire movie, post the transcript, and another person will "re-create" the film with AI tools so you don't have to watch the movie, here's a "AI sock puppet show", we've seen this before with "shrek retold", only that wasn't AI. Imagine what happens when people decide to just do that with the lowest-effort AI.

 

We are already seeing 4, with music. Music industry treats creators with utter contempt, so creators push back and create AI covers, low-fi covers, 8-bit covers, nightcore ai covers, bardcore covers etc.

 

Like I'd say the music industry's contempt is actually driving the right kind of "Creativity" that would normally have to wait for that stuff to fall into the public domain. Where people want "that familiar beat"

 

[Bitter]

8 minutes ago, _PM_ME_YOUR_SYNTAX_ said:

So apparently both Logitech and Adobe have already started implementing this DRM shit.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Try a user agent switching extension and see if it works if the browser says it's Chrome instead of whatever else.

[grg994]

6 hours ago, _PM_ME_YOUR_SYNTAX_ said:

So apparently both Logitech [...] have already started implementing this DRM shit.

Based on all my 5 minutes I'm gonna spend debugging "logiwebconnect.com" it is probably just this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebHID_API#browser_compatibility

 

We won't have real examples for attestation until at least some OS start shipping the to-be-seen attesters

[Monkey Dust]

I can see this splitting the internet in two. The DRM websites you access through one browser, and the rest of the web though another browser. Content sites going for this is likely, but will shopping sites want to potentially discourage shoppers?

 

It also sounds like something the EU will take an interest in...

 

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

I can see this splitting the internet in two.

I dont think so, evety single advertising company will make this mandatory on every site they advertise on......

[Dirtyshado]

I wouldn't mind Google had DRM for advertising on websites... if Google Ads wasn't full of scams, con artists, and exploitative advertising.

 

Looking at Youtube on my mobile with adblocker turned off... dodgy mobile game that looks nothing like the animations in the ad, charity scam, scam education college, car financing scam, life insurance scam, dating scam, a jewelry dropshipping site that says it "official" (scam).  Like Youtube is googles own flagship and they fill it with trash.

 

Despite what Google believes, Adblocker is protecting them from people who would complain about those types of Ads.

 

Like I think the moment they push something like this through, complaints to regulators in the EU and other coutries would skyrocket for fraud and false advertising and they will be held accountable especially with the new laws EU is pushing through too.

Facebook is already facing a major case over scam adverts using celebrity likeness to push cryptoscams, now times that by about 1000!

[Franck]

So once this is implemented the next project is to force people to install a mandatory USB dual arm 5 axis robot to be able to use the browser so it can hold your head and open your eyelid force you to see the ad.

[Bitter]

29 minutes ago, Franck said:

So once this is implemented the next project is to force people to install a mandatory USB dual arm 5 axis robot to be able to use the browser so it can hold your head and open your eyelid force you to see the ad.

No no, to do the browsing for you even when you're not home. They'll just get their own clicks and impressions!

[darknessblade]

I guess google forgot that the EU already fined microsoft for bundling Internet explorer with windows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

 

The EU can and will fine google into oblivion if they want to do this under the Digital Services Act 

[treestain]

19 hours ago, Dirtyshado said:

Despite what Google believes, Adblocker is protecting them from people who would complain about those types of Ads.

Everytime I set up a laptop or computer for my grandparents/parents, an adblocker is always installed. Because if not, they wouldn't go 5 minutes on the web without wiring half their retirement money to a Nigerian prince and installing several viruses just from advertisements. Ads aren't just annoyances, often times they can destroy lives and I've personally seen it happen.

[Kisai]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:37 PM, treestain said:

Everytime I set up a laptop or computer for my grandparents/parents, an adblocker is always installed. Because if not, they wouldn't go 5 minutes on the web without wiring half their retirement money to a Nigerian prince and installing several viruses just from advertisements. Ads aren't just annoyances, often times they can destroy lives and I've personally seen it happen.

My mom is fortunately skeptical enough to not fall for such scams.

 

But I worry when people proactively install ad blocking tools on computers that aren't public systems (eg libraries) because that sets up the user to fall for scams delivered by ads that aren't blocked, because they've not seen what that scam looks like before.

 

It should always be the user's choice to block the ads, not the browser, not the 12 year old computer nerd grandkid. And you're kidding yourself if you trust ad blockers implicitly anyways. They are not anti-virus tools.

[Bitter]

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

My mom is fortunately skeptical enough to not fall for such scams.

 

But I worry when people proactively install ad blocking tools on computers that aren't public systems (eg libraries) because that sets up the user to fall for scams delivered by ads that aren't blocked, because they've not seen what that scam looks like before.

 

It should always be the user's choice to block the ads, not the browser, not the 12 year old computer nerd grandkid. And you're kidding yourself if you trust ad blockers implicitly anyways. They are not anti-virus tools.

Linux+FireFox with Privacy Badger and UBlock Origin or AdNaseum work pretty well to keep things under control and make using the Internet safer.

[treestain]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

They are not anti-virus tools.

Of course not, but when you're tracked via Google or Facebook, and they use this data to manipulate you into clicking advertisements and lead you down a very bad rabbit hole of disinformation whether politically, financially, or medically, ad blockers protect against this.

But if it's an "ad" that is popped up by the website itself via a sponsor or something, I've personally seen my parents be more skeptical of those specific pop-ups because they are not tailored to them, they do not "push their buttons" or try to emotionally/mentally manipulate them into clicking it based off of their interests or views on the world. Because that website does not know their job title, their political views, their age, what makes them happy, sad, angry, or anything else to try and manipulate them just so they can get another click on their record, so businesses will keep paying them high prices to advertise their name.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

It should always be the user's choice to block the ads

Also agreed, they know what I do to their devices. I get their consent, ask before I change something, all of that. I just want to make technology easier for them as they really don't have time to be twiddling around menus trying to get things to work, so I try to set it up for them and make it as easy as possible for them to get their work done. We help each other when we can, it's what we do, and I couldn't be more thankful.

[Godiwa]

On 7/23/2023 at 3:14 AM, Kisai said:

Gee, if only there was a competing web browser that wasn't developed by an ad company.

 

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Authentication_API/Attestation_and_Assertion

 

Oh wait, there isn't.

 

See, here's the problem.

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md

 

This is entirely being pushed to "protect" content.

Kiss your web scrapers and search spiders goodbye. Google Images, Toast.

 

The thing is, protecting content is a solved thing. Don't-put-it-on-the-web.

 

As we saw earlier this year, Google gave the game away with youtube ad blocking. We know the reason for Manifest v3. It's obvious. It's to make ad blocking impossible by design. Break the web by making it proprietary.

 

The web has slowly been abandoned in favor of "apps" on mobile devices, because the mobile apps have this ability already. By making it so you get the inferior experience on the web browser. 

Thats the time when an alternate web grows up, not like they can block others servers etc. (yet) noone wants to watch those lame ads, ads started out just being there, then they began flashing and moving, then they started playing audio loudly and loading video (bad on datalimited connections) and covering the whole screen and no matter where you accidently click then bam you go to some ad spam website...

there is a reason people begun blocking that...

same with YT ads... early days there were one in the beginning... now you can get up to 10min at the start and an ad every 30 seconds and the ads are longer than the video you got to watch until the ad started... and then they began with unskippable ads... yeah I wonder why ppl began blocking that BS... I wonder why...