this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
985 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34788 readers
220 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Can you explain this to a layman what this does?

[–] narwhal@lemmy.ml 85 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So is the only way around it to not use Chromium-based browsers? Or does it pollute everything??

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That will work until websites start requiring it. At that point browsers like Firefox have to either capitulate and implement Google's DRM or become unusable for the majority of websites.

And then we'll have a web where the corporations have complete control over what you can view and how. Ad blocking and anti-tracking will be things of the past, and corporate websites will have a unique key from your browser to help them track you around the web. And no more hiding your identity behind anonymous browsers over Tor or VPNs.

So we found out about this about 4 days ago, and when people objected they shut down people's ability to log issues or comment on the GitHub repo. And now they're already cramming it into their browser. This is strong evidence that Google knows it's unpopular and tried to keep it under wraps as long as possible so they could get it into the browser before people had time to react.

[–] eek2121@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let them require it. Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

I can also see Apple taking a stand against this. They have a competing (and much more reasonable) implementation that respects user privacy.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google's ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google's ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even if the effects didn't go this far (which I agree they quite probably will), it wouldn't be feasible for other search engines to just exclude sites that implemented Google's DRM. If Google makes it attractive enough to the owners of major sites to implement this (and it will be attractive if it ensures they get ad views), then no one will use a search engine that omits all the most popular websites. The same goes for non-Google browsers. This is really a shocking attempt by Google to use its own browser's popularity to seize an effective monopoly of the web.

[–] dewritoninja@pawb.social 32 points 1 year ago

The idea is that service providers would only trust chromium browsers

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No. The only way "around it" is to give up and use Chrome.

Everything else will have to dance to Google's tune to access any website that implements this, and that will at very least include Google's own websites.

[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Okay then, then I don’t use it, stick to Safari and phone call anyone who requires me using their site with Chrome. Or I’ll go elsewhere. I’ve been down this road with IE before…

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 76 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it be possible to create some kind of "post-browser" that takes input from the web browser and displays it after passing it through ad blockers and whatever else?

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Such an abstraction, while unnecessary, should be possible, providing that Google doesn't forcibly prevent access to the final markup that coalesces (ie.: view source and web dev tools)

[–] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

The only acceptable browser would obviously be ones that restrict that access, how else are they going to force people to see all their ads?

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Perhaps, but it's not as simple as it sounds.

Most of the Web requires js to work. I don't think the js will work without the DRM.

So the proxy would need to be running the js, and emulate your clicks and so on.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would this impact web proxies at all? If so, that would entail a pretty huge security change for a lot of corporations.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

If it's something like a proxy server that pre-modifies the markup/code, then yes, I can see WEI interfering with that.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a way to disable ad blockers.

Presently web servers send data to your browser, which can arrange the content however you wish, because it's your browser on your device. Excluding content you don't like is fairly trivial.

This drm stuff will basically make the browser refuse to display anything unless the whole page is unaltered.

[–] Zaneak@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does unaltered include things like colorblind extension that change colors to more easily differentiate between some red/green for example? Or stuff like reddit enhancement suite? Sounds like a good way to kill other possible useful extensions.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's exactly what it will do. Don't believe the bullshit in their "non-goals" section, they don't give a fuck. If accessibility extensions happen to continue working (at least temporarily), it will be by accident, because they for damn sure aren't going to spend even a second on compatibility.

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Shit man, this would ruin even the small internet. I won't even be able to cheat on dragcave. And most of what I was doing was keeping a tally of my collection since the site doesn't do that. But there's no way page modifications wouldn't be caught and punished no matter what they actually do.

[–] Cheers@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine you're a builder and you build a store (website). People can come into your store through the door or window. WEI will make sure you come through the door just as the builder intended.

At face value, that sounds fine, but now imagine that builder puts a maze (all of the ads littered on a webpage) on the other side of the door. It's a pain in the ass to get through and someone (adblock) has told you about the window that lets you skip the maze. You can get what you want and the store gets to sell a thing. Everyone's happy except the maze builder (Google), so they're trying to force the entire world to go through the maze.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait Google can place ads on my website without my permission?

[–] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

You're the builder, and thus the one who can choose to put a maze there or not.