And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.

  • dantheclamman
    link
    English
    241 year ago

    I mean, they said Manifest V3 wasn’t supposed to interfere with ad blocking either. Yet here we are. Their power over how people access the web is too great to just trust what they say.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      I don’t disagree with you. If this gets implemented, the end result is going to be a walled garden web that only accepts “trusted” browsers. That’s the concern here for ad blocking: every website demanding a popular browser that just so happens to not support extensions.

      My issue is with how the OP framed the post. The title is misleading and suggests that this is a direct attempt to DRM the web, when it’s not. I wouldn’t have said anything if the post was less sensationalized, laying out the details of the proposal and its long-term consequences in an objective and informative way.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        , laying out the details of the proposal and its long-term consequences in an objective and informative way.

        “Google wants to introduce DRM to the web”.

        With the years of experience that we have with the disasters caused by all of “Google”, “wants”, “DRM” and “web”, how is this not objective and informative enough for a title?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Given Google’s history, the assertion made by the title isn’t wrong. That doesn’t mean that it’s objective and informative, however.

          The title suggests that the intent is to create DRM for web pages and “make ad blockers near-impossible”. From an informational standpoint, it correctly captures the likely consequences that would occur should the proposal be implemented. What it (nor the post body) does not do is provide an explanation, information, or context to explain why the proposal demonstrates the claim that is being made.

          The reader is not informed about Google’s history of trying to subvert ad blockers, nor are they shown how the proposal will lead to DRMed web pages and adblock prevention. The post is a reaction-inducing title followed by a link to a proposal and angry comments on GitHub. That’s not informative; that’s ragebait.

          Suppose I give the post the benefit of the doubt, and consider the bar for being “informative” to be simply letting people know about something. It’s still not objective. I’m not saying the OP should support Google or downplay the severity of the proposal, but they could have got the same point across without including their own prejudices:

          “Google engineers propose new web standard that would enable websites to prevent access from browsers running adblockers or website-altering extentions.”

          For the record: I agree with what this post is trying to say. I just disagree with how it’s said. Lemmy isn’t hemorrhaging ad money, and it isn’t overwhelmingly noisy. We don’t need to bring over toxic engagement tactics to generate views.