if they outright forced us to stop day one thered be outrage, so they instead ease us in. first a popup, then a timed popup, slowly leading to their actual goal but without the outrage

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Client side web DRM is coming, which is why Google makes browsers and OSs now.

      Adblock will be prohibited for “security”.

        • Sha'ul@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And how much power does Google have to force that on websites that reject it and users who use Lbrewolf or IceCat?

          • All the power that an advertisement network can buy. Especially youtube since it’s owned by google. And advertisers will be happy to have a way of forcing site visitors to run ads/malware or else they will not get served the content.
            It’s similar to certain bank apps refusing to function on Android devices with an unlocked bootloader: you want the convenience of an e-banking application (/ad-driven corporate website)? – Your device (/web browser) “security” must be verified by the “authority” who actually owns your operating system, else you won’t. Everyone* will “be loving” their secure devices, because they “just work”.

            *who is a potential customer buyer and therefore relevant

            Google is trying to use their dominance to actually own the www. The comment/issue section of the github site of the proposal is quite enlightening, if you have the time … especially their reactions on the general dismissal and condemnation of the proposal as unethical.

      • Sha'ul@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You sound like you are parroting and self-aggrandizing or contrived.