this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1409 points (99.0% liked)

Firefox

18056 readers
64 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 92 points 1 year ago (23 children)

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.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

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.

[–] whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FightMilk 1 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)