I don't understand. Isn't someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff, put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
976 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
35023 readers
231 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
Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,
Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but
put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?
This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it's a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor's results to the server you're talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you're talking to expects attestation.
I don't really understand how that's possible. The browser gets a token from the third party, and passes that token to the server to "prove" it's running the DRM. The server then passes code back to the browser. At that point, why can't the browser just cut out the DOM elements which are ads?
I don't understand how code I write on hardware I run locally can ever have it's hands tied like this.
It won't be your hardware in a few years if this goes through. The code will run in a secure enclave and you won't be able to access your bank or log in to government websites if you control the hardware.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
I wonder how many people will be ok with this, considering that there's a large portion of folks who does not know what's AdBlock
load more comments
(3 replies)
NOOOOOOO
Would it be possible to create a fork of chromium to avoid google's influence?
Not really, since Google develops Chromium.
FireFox receives most of their funding from Google, even though they've come out as opposing this plan. They have next to no market share.
The only other browser engine that can seriously compete with Chromium is Safari.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Google is actively trying to drive people like me away. I have been trying my hardest to keep using Android, if Google keeps this up I might have to unwillingly move to Apple. At least they do more than just pretend to care about their users' privacy.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I just don't understand why they're trying to solve this issue on the client side. It seems like a losing battle to me.
Instead, focus on the server side. If you want to push ads, then host on (or tunnel from) the content server. Get rid of all the <div\>s and tags and scripts and adserver links that the adblockers are using to identify ads. Just assemble the page on the host so that it looks indistinguisable from the content the user is looking for and push it out. EAT BACHELOR CHOW! NOW WITH FLAVOR! Google could even start an ad-friendly hosting service that does this - some sitebuilder tools, identify where you want Google Adsense, and host the damn thing.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I guess I won that bet. :/