You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like I’ve been forced to switch a lot of my default applications lately based on shitty decisions from tone deaf companies. I guess I’m going to move from Brave to Firefox finally.
Made the switch recently myself and can never look back. Being able to install custom add-ons on mobile is a huge plus to me
deleted by creator
Never heard anything bad about brave privacy, you got sources?
I think this is what has recently turned people against them: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/brave-browser-under-fire-for-alleged-sale-of-copyrighted-data/491854/#:~:text=Brave is alleged to sell,transparency in the tech industry.
They also in the past got caught using affiliate links with crypto URLs which gave brave kickbacks. Scumbag shit. If you want actual hardened browsing forget brave or anything chromium based. Use librewolf which is a forked version of Firefox. Mull if you’re on F-Droid.
Sauce: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology
^^^ absolutely.
Brave is also associated with Peter Thiel and if there is one person to get the title of Evil Tech Bro, it’s him.
Why did you chose Brave to begin with? Serious question, not being snarky. I tried it for a day and it just didn’t compete with Firefox + uBlock Origin in any meaningful way. I don’t see the appeal of bundling advanced security and filtering tools with the browser, it’s better if they’re separate entities, keeps everyone honest.
I’ve taught multiple people in my life to use brave. The vast majority of end users simply can’t be bothered to install a plugin or understand how to manage it when a site breaks. Brave makes it just a little more intuitive for them and means less IT calls for me. Firefox with ublock is what I personally use. Brave is what my family uses.
Brave is just as likely to “break” a site as uBO, what do they do then?
Brave has a button right next the task bar they can use to toggle off controls. I know ublock is stupid simple to do that too but the extra step of going to plugins then settings has lost people in my experience.
uBlock has a button next to the search bar, you can hide it, but I’m pretty sure it’s shown by default. It’s 2 clicks, but it’s just the shield icon (which I’m just realizing has uO on it instead of uBO, is that the official abbreviation?) then a big ass Power button. Either way, in my experience, anyone I try to set up with anything other than Edge, ends up back on it within a month because the dark patterns work and they get tricked into it :(
Huh… That’s an interesting idea. Best argument for brave I’ve heard too
Moving browsers used to be moved the webpages now…it’s a massive deal now.
Stop using chrome. Absolute cancer of a browser
Chrome is fine. It’s Google what’s evil.
Chrome IS Google.
Chrome is a chip off the old block, in addition to just being the worse browser anyway.
@Llewellyn @ilovecarrotjuice Chrome is in now way fine…
You could say the exact same thing about YouTube and it’d be just as wrong.
Even if I go along that line of thought, few years ago when I was using Chrome it started scanning my computer without any notice, causing the fan to run hard.
I stopped using that creepy POS immediately and switched to Firefox. Never again a browser can just make a decision to scan my computer to “protect” me from whatever.
Yes, agree
Extremely common Firefox W
If this DRM can force you to use Chromium to display a webpage or content, that would be the most anticompetitive thing in recent times, and would absolutely not fly.
That’s why they want to make it a web standard, so they can just blame Firefox and others for not following the standard and avoid EU fines.
That’s what Microsoft did with their office document standard.
Yeah, the sad thing here is that if Apple comply, it will basically become a standard and there’s nothing that Firefox or anything else can do about it. If they can get it on iPhone, it’s game over. Half the web will be blocked unless you agree to see adverts.
If they can get it on iPhone, it’s game over.
While this is true, I struggle to understand how Apple would stand to gain from implementing this unless it had already become a widespread standard. It’s also an opportunity for more privacy focused marketing if they oppose it, just like they do with government attempts to force them to implement backdoors into iOS.
Yeah, they already dont bother implementing a bunch of actual standards. I don’t see what they would get out of this since their ad network is very limited
I doubt the EU would buy that.
If it’s an actual official web standard, they might have to.
“Official” web standards huh?
I am afraid EU can be too dumb to not buy that!
Good thing Google is not a recognized standards body
I have limited understanding of the technical side of this issue, but based on this comment, this sounds like a brilliant move by Google - Don’t like the rules of the game, change the game…
Edit: for clarification, this comment was very tongue in cheek - I don’t support Google, this was just an acknowledgement of a smart business play.
an acknowledgement of a smart business play.
When politicians do it, it’s “corruption.” When normal people do it, it’s “crime.” When capitalist parasites do it, it’s “smart business.”
Double standards for yay! Smart business doesn’t preclude moral/ethical cesspools
We need to stop this capitalist brainrot. It’s not a smart business move; a smart business move would be one where everyone wins. This is a lazy and evil move designed for pure extraction of value and coercion of compliance.
Live the way we want you to (and we take 30% off the top!)
`I mean, yes, agreed. But this is literally how businesses operate - stay ahead of governments, or change the game so govts are onboard (as regulation regularly trails behind business). A genuinely smart business move would obviously be preferable, but the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl. It should be, but gestures wildly at everything
Edit: exchanged “always” for “regularly”
the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl
I mean, yes, agreed. But why does anyone think that that’s ok?
While I have issues with the rules of “the game”, the current rules are better than the changes that Google are proposing, but since they are infinitely more powerful than me, I can only hope whatever body (W3C?) does not make it an official standard. As long as it’s just an extra thing that Chrome/Chromium does, there’s still hope for Google to get into legal trouble.
Fingers crossed that you’re right. Definitely don’t want to see them repositioning into an (even more) advantageous policy position. I imagine that a standards body such as the one you mentioned would be fairly careful about adopting anything proposed by a company without significant caution. At least that’s how it works with some international standards agencies haha
Gj mozilla
Can someone explain to me the google API and DRM situation in stupid people terms? I’m stupidly tech illiterate but I know that this is a big deal and I would like to understand
Sure thing. With this current proposal, when you visit a website, the site asks your browser if you’re willing to display it as intended, basically with all and any adverts. If the answer is no, then you can’t see the content, if the answer is yes, then you’re likely using Chrome or a Chromium based browser and Google can guarantee more ad impressions, because they’re first and foremost an advert selling company.
I may not be 100% right, as I haven’t looked at it in detail, but I think it’s even a bit more than that. Since the way that’s proven is by the browser vendor signing the request (I assume with an HTTP header or something), you could also verify it’s from a specific vendor. So even if Mozilla says, yes, we’ll display your ads, a website could still lock down to Chrome. It would probably also significantly hamper new browsers, and browsers with a security/anti-ad focus, as they won’t be recognised by major websites that use the new protocol until they have market share, which they won’t get if they don’t have access to major websites.
deleted by creator
A) Maybe not you, maybe not me or anyone else here, but 99.99% of the rest of the world? And when the rest leave, is Mozilla really going to be able to justify maintaining a browser for those that remain? B) There might not be a website that would do it, but what about if practically all websites with any corporate backing did it?
This is the fundamental point that so many techies fail to get. Saying “I’ll be fine, I’ll do X” is irrelevant. If nobody’s doing what you want to do, then eventually you won’t be able to do it either.
I mean, they already do that by filtering out user agents. But this is certainly a step beyond.
Which is why all browsers cross identify as other browsers. This would make it easier for sites to block and harder for browsers to work around.
Thanks so much, I understand now. God, is that a shitty move for Google to pull
Why can’t your browser lie and say “yes of course I’m displaying everything my fingers definitely aren’t crossed behind my back”?
Because it’s not just going to say yes. It’s going to say yes, and then present an unique key that browser made for themselves. Other browsers might be able to spoof the key, but the proposal might have cryptographically expensive to even try.
What about replying yes, then blocking ads?
Your device would return a signature to say that there’s no adblocking software on the device.
And that signature can’t be spoofed? Or the browser can’t be sandboxed and quarantined so it is made unaware of such software, and the software applied retroactively?
People will always find a workaround, look at rooting of phones for example. But they shouldn’t have to. I mean look at how banking apps refuse to work on rooted phones but work in a browser on your desktop without any issues. It will be the same with this. Your device is rooted, we can’t show you this webpage.
That’s not true - you can still use ad blockers etc as normal.
It’s also not a browser check, it’s a device check. It’s to check that the device can be trusted, like android itself hasn’t been tampered with.
That’s equally stupid though… why shouldn’t I be able to tamper with my phone’s operating system? And how is it any of a website’s business if I do?
You can tamper all you want, but apps can already block access to devices that have been tampered with. This just gives that same power to websites.
… yes, and I am obviously very against giving that same power to websites lol. An app is built from the ground up as a UX created by the company, and that is what you are signing up for when you use an app. A browser should be a contained way of rendering data from some webserver according to a user’s preferences. Google is apparently trying to “app-ify” web protocols in order to give themselves more power over a user’s experience to the detriment of the user.
It’s literallly impossible for there to be a valid reason for a website to be entitled to know that under any circumstances.
So people with custom roms or on various Linux distros would be fucked?
Well with custom roms they already are for many apps.
True, but that’s within their own ecosystem. The internet is not owned by Google. But I guess a certain part of the majority wants it that way with how popular Chromium based browsers are.
How could it not be a browser check if the website relies on the browser to be a middle man? The WebDRM that was pushed by a terrorist organization W3C, currently requires per-browser licensing.
Per wikipedia:
EME has been highly controversial because it places a necessarily proprietary, closed decryption component which requires per-browser licensing fees into what might otherwise be an entirely open and free software ecosystem.
lol are the downvotes for the terrorist bit?
A device check is inherently a browser check, you’re absolutely right and the other person is confused. Or shilling has already arrived to lemmy, idk. “Google isn’t nefariously using this ability that we actually haven’t yet given them” is a bizarre argument.
I bet you heard about safetynet on android devices. It is a service that checks if you run a genuine licensed not-modified version of android. If not - app developer can just restrict you access to the app. It is mostly used by banking apps, but there’re many examples of not security critical apps utilize this.
Google wants to do the same but for browsers and websites. If you run firefox or modified chrome or use adblocks: youtube, twitter, etc. would be able to detect it and can restrict access to the website.SafetyNet is fairly easy to defeat.
If you root your device correctly. Can’t expect most mobile users to do that. Can’t expect users with locked bootloaders to do that. Can’t even expect many power users to do that. A lot of very tech literate people I know that customise their computer OS heavily still don’t want to root their phone.
Only because nobody is actually enforcing key-backed attestation.
@janAkali @WaffleFriends I am old enough to remember “don’t be evil” not being said sarcastically.
if they dont like your browser you cant view the site , ultimately its gonna be google who will be deciding what conditions your browser has to fulfill to be approved and the big one they wont say outright is adblockers , if you have an adblocker they will not allow you to veiw the site
if they dont like your browser you cant view the site , ultimately its gonna be google who will be deciding what conditions your browser has to fulfill to be approved and the big one they wont say outright is adblockers , if you have an adblocker they will not allow you to veiw the site
I hope EU steps in this time too
They try to present it as “detecting abuse”, but it’s literally just “allow servers to block non-verified browers”(in other words google blocking access to their services for non-chrome users(the people proposing it work for google)).
And as always these types of asshats always shit all over anyone using accessbility tools(or don’t even consider them in the first place, which amounts to the same thing).
i personally don’t understand why companies overlook accessbility, is it to save profits?
why did you waste your time asking that question when you already knew the answer?
It’s always the profits!!!
I get it costs money to develop accessibility, but you can’t rip off a blind man if he can’t navigate your sight. I truly don’t get it.
Edit: site, not sight
They’ve simply run the numbers and decided it would cost more to support the blind man’s access than they could get from plundering the blind man.
I want to laugh but … well … I’m not crying YOU’RE CRYING
Removed by mod
pretty much yes to keys and hashes. Just think HDCP and HDMI
That said, I imagine it’ll have to be easier to hack software that isn’t embedded in hardware. but it’s also easier to issue revocation lists when you don’t have to worry about bricking everyone’s hardware. So I have no idea which way that balance tilts.
Very much the latter.
“Listen, if we didn’t think about it, it’s clearly not important.”
One just has to wonder… how evil can Google become?!
Yes!
Yes-ier!
If this goes through. Will Google become a browser monopoly and (hopefully) get sued
Apple already implemented something similar on safari that flew under the radar, so the browser/mobile duopoly cartel is still working.
Do you have any more details on this?
deleted by creator
Have slowly been switching to Firefox for a couple of months, but the DRM proposal has gotten me to fully switch.
Thank you. You’re only one person, but the world is just particles. If enough of us come together, we will be something tangible.
deleted by creator
I still use panorama tab groups.
It’s a former Firefox feature made into an extension. Still great.
Edge’s left sidebar vertical tabs has ruined me. Plz add this Mozilla, and I’m all in on Foxy Fox
Sidebery is a saviour for me and very likely you too. I’ve got 1500 tabs just lying there in my sidebar, inactive and neatly grouped together!
Ooooo neat thanks for the tip!
Fucking US and all their shitty companies. literally a big FU
same feel man: too much american shitty companies (especilaly software companies)
Based and actual freedom pilled
I still don’t get where this proposal originated. It looks like a random user, what’s their connection to Google and why do we believe it’s even under consideration by the organisation?
Also, <3 ff
No organisations put things through in giant blazing neon letters. One employee quietly pushes a bit, another a different bit and ten bits later we’re all like, WTF?
Google has been trying to ensure they can serve everyone ads for a while. There’s a reason the author of uBlock clearly states that the Chrome version isn’t as good.
I miss old Google that refused to use anything but small text boxes for advertising. Shit, I saw they actually put an ad in the search history drop-down of the Play Store app now.
You get to Google pretty quickly by following links. If you look at the top of the linked issue, it links to a few things owned by Rupert Ben Wiser. If you follow the explainer link, you get this list of authors:
Authors: Ben Wiser (Google) Borbala Benko (Google) Philipp Pfeiffenberger (Google) Sergey Kataev (Google)
And in the repo, he says it’s being prototyped in Chromium.
That’s all written by him though, so I guess he could just be lying and making up names. So I tried looking up his name, to see if he’s listed anywhere as a Google employee, but the best I could find is he’s listed as a Google employee since 2022 on Facebook and LinkedIn. And he doesn’t have much on his Github. (I kinda feel a little stalkery now… Don’t harass anyone please). So either this is an elaborate, very late, April fool’s or he’s probably the fall guy for whatever exec actually thought this up.
I wasn’t really doubting that he was a Google employee, rather more questioning whether the corporation (bare in mind it’s huge) is aware of his efforts and this is on their immediate roadmap. It could just be a bunch of employees trying something about/proposing it internally and it might get shot down.
But I take the other commenter’s point that this is how it begins
Def not a random user, it came from a committee. There’s an attendees list and meeting notes attached to it if you click around a bit
