this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
2607 points (99.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54609 readers
530 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 1 year 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
[–] mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

not quite , this is way more serious than refusing to give extensions access to websites content. ( for those who don't know that's what manifest-v3 essentially do )

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think i understand it.

You would need to be using a browser that is "verified" to view content.

I'm saying that most things trend toward homeostasis. If it's "successful" it will hurt them. But it won't be successful. All verification is falsifiable.

[–] veroxii@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed. It's like people forgot about Microsoft and IE. They also had drm options in the browser. Anyone remember Silverlight?

And how did that work out for them?

I do wish Firefox would be more customizable about what sites an extension can access though.