Mozilla’s position on WEI is pretty solid.

    • profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Although a comment close below puts a little dent into that ^^

      https://github.com/mozilla/> standards-positions/issues/852#issuecomment-1649928726

      I guess, even if “it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.”, it might happen just like the past:

      https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ Formal objection: FLOSS and EME w3c/encrypted-media#378 https://daniele.tech/2014/05/firefox-drm-and-w3c-eme-complicated-technical-matter/

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think Firefox’s position is unreasonable here. Ultimately, the old way of distributing copy-write content wasn’t going to work. Companies that had right to something, couldn’t easily distribute it without a large risk of piracy and a tanking of revenues. Having a sandbox around proprietary shite made sense and protected users privacy while also enabling the content providers to maintain their asset.

        Removing ad blocks is a wholly different ball game. Google obviously has a stake in it because YT is funded by ads. Maybe some ad driven content providers also, but subscription driven services don’t have the same need for that. It does seem an unholy alliance between content providers and big tech has been formed and it could be something at play again.

        • profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I actually agree and appreciate your response. I was just poking a little fun at the “impossible” there but Firefox absolutely has been an invaluable voice for neticens all over the world.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why do I feel like it isn’t the death of the internet as we know of, but rather the sharding of the internet. The corpo plaza internet is clearly emerging, we have to make sure we support and hold up the everyone else internet

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Problem: banking, health care, and the government are on the corpo plaza internet, and you are required to deal with them.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      With banking, streaming, there isn’t really an easy alternative. This could be a locking out that could be quite disruptive.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like it’s worth reopening the sub just to share this.

    Like, I’ve been watching reddit all day, waiting patiently for this news to hit the fan, and I’m not seeing it anywhere. Like…I’m kind of stunned. This is exactly the thing I would think would blow up on Reddit.

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is we can’t just not use their internet - I see extending the fediverse as a great way to bring back the original promise of the Internet, a free place for collaboration and exchange of ideas.

    But we still need to use the normal Internet for daily life. The potential control here goes so far past ad blocking or browser choice - what happens when they start deciding what apps you can have, or what os, or if your using an unmodified locked down system without root access?

    Plus, you have legislation like kosa that could be used to restrict people from operating websites locally in the US.

    This move alone wouldn’t kill the Internet, but you have to look at the wider context. This is an inflection point - tech giants are on an all out money grab, and a lot of important battles are going to happen back to back. Losing any one of them will be just an inconvenience, but all together they’re going to redefine the rules moving forward

    • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Web dev here. It enforces the original markup and code from a server to be the markup and code that the browser interprets and executes, preventing any post-loading modifications.

      That sounds a bit dry, but the implications are huge. It means:

      • ad blockers won’t work (the main reason for Google’s ploy)
      • many, if not most, other browser extensions won’t work (eg.: accessibility, theming, anti-malware)
      • people are going to start running into a lot of scam ads that ad blockers would otherwise prevent
      • malicious websites will be able to operate with impunity since you cannot run security extensions to prevent them
      • web developers are going to be crippled for lack of debugging ability

      These are just a few things off the top of my head. There are endless and very dangerous implications to WEI. This is very, very bad for the web and antithesis of how it’s supposed to be.

      TBL is probably experiencing a sudden disturbance in the force.

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you’re missing the fact that if google doesn’t attest for your software choice, the website could prevent access. It is google trying to take ownership of what is and isn’t supported software when accessing the internet. This is far more serious that a few adverts, this could be the removal of liberty on the open web.

      • eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying you’re wrong or that Web Environment Integrity is a good thing, but a primary source and citation is needed for this statement:

        It enforces the original markup and code from a server to be the markup and code that the browser interprets and executes, preventing any post-loading modifications.

        • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Read between the lines, dude. Ad blockers work by observing and analyzing the DOM for elements presenting or containing ads and subsequently removing or obscuring those elements by manipulating the DOM. There’s no way for WEI to carry out its purported goals without forcibly preventing DOM manipulation.

          There are absolutely no conceivable benefits for users. None.

          • eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree, and I’m personally aware of the consequences. Adding the API would be the first step, and future proposals and changes could amend it to add other environment details to tell a website that there are browser extensions that can read or modify the page.

            I don’t really think summarizing WEI as though it already includes those really helps people understand what WEI currently is or does, though. Nobody reads the actual documentation before repeating what they were told, and that’s going to lead to the spread of factually-incorrect information. It’s not a bad thing for people to be aware of the long-term issue with having a WEI API, but users’ lack of understanding of WEI in its current form is just going to be used by Google as proof to dismiss dissenting feedback as FUD.

            • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I didn’t read through the entire spec, but I read enough to sniff out their Trojan horseshit. I’m not regurgitating anything, I’m calling it as I see it.

              This is of benefit to no one but for corporate overlords to do more overlording. It’s fixing a problem that doesn’t exist.

              I don’t know why you’re trying to hard to defend one the biggest corporations on earth that decidedly not-not-evil, but if I ever need a top notch recipe for robust leather footwear, I’ll be sure to call you up.

  • Loui@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like our best bet is EU regulation against this kind of monopoly.

    I dont get it. Doesnt the US have an anti monopoly agency?

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most countries have anti-monopoly agencies. Whether they are of a mind to take action or not is another question entirely. Sometimes they are absolutely toothless. I miss the days when they used to do stuff like when MS was prevented from forcing browser/search engine (I cannot remember which) by default etc.

      We absolutely should try to lobby as much as we can to nudge them to act, but I don’t think we can rely on government agencies alone. MS recent acquisition shows that agencies are either not motivated, or not competent enough to oppose tech giants.