CHROME (google) is planing to implement DRM (kinda) into their browser
looks like rendering adblockers extensions obsolete with manifest-v3 was not enough so now they try to implement DRM into the browser giving the ability to any website to refuse traffic to you if you don't run a complaint browser ( cough...firefox )
here is an article in hacker news since i'm sure they can explain this to you better than i.
and also some github docs
You are viewing a single comment
The solution is not using crappy things. As simple as that.
We're the minority, if this gets implemented it's endgame. Try convincing the billions of people who already don't care enough to use Firefox to protect their privacy to now stop using Chrome because it's killing the open web. Now tell them to stop using services they care about because DRM is bad.
At this point our only real hope is the EU decides to forcibly stop this, but I'm not holding my breath.
It's endgame for old WWW. Well, maybe Gemini will have its market glory moment, though commercialization is explicitly what its creators and users don't want.
What is Gemini in this context?
https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
This is neat, but this decidedly a niche product with very limited application. I'm an old hat and I can't see the inherent value proposition in this, why is this better than static pages with hyperlinks? That doesn't and frankly shouldn't require a whole new protocol and client. That's what HTTP and HTML were originally built for.
Because HTTP and HTML are already stretched out to be broken resulting in the internet you know. Gemini protocol, on the other hand, starts from scratch with the idea to be limited by design on what it can possibly do, so as to remove the most common commercial enshittification cases as early as possible.
Sure you could make the argument that HTML has too much going on, but you don't have to use all of that. It is still at its core just as capable of rendering plaintext and hyperlinks as it was the day it was originally conceived.
Why couldn't this just be a webring of sites that are following a specific design philosophy. I don't understand the requirement of an entirely new language, protocol, and client. You're not executing the goal in any way than what is already possible, and you're cutting yourself off from being accessible by the vast majority of people by requiring them to install a whole new piece of software just to see if this idea is worth exploring.
The people who designed Gemini (and those who designed Gopher, and who did IRC, and...) have already gone to vast lengths explaining why it has to be redesigned from scratch, including new language and protocol. tl;dr: if you keep using current HTML, you have no way of preventing people from using eg.: <script> or <iframe>, or anything beyond such as ads and malware. No amount of "pinky fingy we promise" can allow you to assure to your clients that the sites you link to are safe, which kills the idea of a webring.
I'm all for the return of webrings, but if what you want to offer is something that is 1.- safe and 2.- as protected as possible from the evil incentives that drive corps, then at the current development stage it just can't be HTML.
It is static pages with hyperlinks, only in a different protocol. It's supposed to be like upgraded Gopher with some good things from modernity and HTTP.
Static pages with hyperlinks have evolved into a certain horror we all know. One of the stated goals is that Gemini is not extensible by design. It's not intended to easily grow additional features, even server-side theming of pages.
Why new protocol and clients - because of control. It's a small protocol, clients are simple, they don't need all the sandboxing and interpreting and DOM that web browsers have.
Why couldn't this just be a webring of sites following a specific design philosophy?
This is a neat idea, but the requirement of installing a whole new piece of software just to decide if it's worth exploring is already a non-starter.
I mean, there's the FAQ for this question among others, and it's like asking why Linux and not some Windows 1337 Pr0 B00tl3g Edition.
That "whole new piece of software" takes many times less than loading a webpage FFS, how often do you visit new webpages? And some people also play games, is installing a game a non-starter?
Wonderful solution, good luck convincing others.
Well, I've made the point yesterday that it's unfair if another person expects me to always use what's convenient for them, but never returns the favor. And that there's no desktop client for WhatsApp for Linux, and that my wrists are bad with touchscreens, and that Meta are bad guys.
It was unexpected, but this worked and I now have some XMPP contacts, relatives, of course, who else would listen to me on that.
I had no problem convincing relatives to use Signal, I am still required to have WhatsApp because every workplace requires it.
Same, but the trick is to force workplace to pay it and deal with it. During the three years I was freelancing I had four company phones at home and had to pay for none of them, other than battery rechargings (and that's when I ever brought them home; on weekends I just powered them off and left them in the garage).
Ah, my workplace requires Telegram, but not WhatsApp. Still lots of people use WhatsApp, so I still have it.