▲ 32 ▼ Mozilla opposes Web Integrity API proposal (github.com) submitted 3 years ago by CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml [M] to c/degoogle@lemmy.ml 22 comments fedilink hide all child comments Mozilla's position on WEI is pretty solid.
[–] KindredAffiliate@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Mozilla try not to be based challenge (impossible) permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Although a comment close below puts a little dent into that ^^ https://github.com/mozilla/> standards-positions/issues/852#issuecomment-1649928726 I guess, even if "it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.", it might happen just like the past: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ Formal objection: FLOSS and EME w3c/encrypted-media#378 https://daniele.tech/2014/05/firefox-drm-and-w3c-eme-complicated-technical-matter/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I don't think Firefox's position is unreasonable here. Ultimately, the old way of distributing copy-write content wasn't going to work. Companies that had right to something, couldn't easily distribute it without a large risk of piracy and a tanking of revenues. Having a sandbox around proprietary shite made sense and protected users privacy while also enabling the content providers to maintain their asset. Removing ad blocks is a wholly different ball game. Google obviously has a stake in it because YT is funded by ads. Maybe some ad driven content providers also, but subscription driven services don't have the same need for that. It does seem an unholy alliance between content providers and big tech has been formed and it could be something at play again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 3 years ago I actually agree and appreciate your response. I was just poking a little fun at the "impossible" there but Firefox absolutely has been an invaluable voice for neticens all over the world. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tDSpPd2C9MrT8n@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Although a comment close below puts a little dent into that ^^ https://github.com/mozilla/> standards-positions/issues/852#issuecomment-1649928726 I guess, even if "it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.", it might happen just like the past: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ Formal objection: FLOSS and EME w3c/encrypted-media#378 https://daniele.tech/2014/05/firefox-drm-and-w3c-eme-complicated-technical-matter/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I don't think Firefox's position is unreasonable here. Ultimately, the old way of distributing copy-write content wasn't going to work. Companies that had right to something, couldn't easily distribute it without a large risk of piracy and a tanking of revenues. Having a sandbox around proprietary shite made sense and protected users privacy while also enabling the content providers to maintain their asset. Removing ad blocks is a wholly different ball game. Google obviously has a stake in it because YT is funded by ads. Maybe some ad driven content providers also, but subscription driven services don't have the same need for that. It does seem an unholy alliance between content providers and big tech has been formed and it could be something at play again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 3 years ago I actually agree and appreciate your response. I was just poking a little fun at the "impossible" there but Firefox absolutely has been an invaluable voice for neticens all over the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I don't think Firefox's position is unreasonable here. Ultimately, the old way of distributing copy-write content wasn't going to work. Companies that had right to something, couldn't easily distribute it without a large risk of piracy and a tanking of revenues. Having a sandbox around proprietary shite made sense and protected users privacy while also enabling the content providers to maintain their asset. Removing ad blocks is a wholly different ball game. Google obviously has a stake in it because YT is funded by ads. Maybe some ad driven content providers also, but subscription driven services don't have the same need for that. It does seem an unholy alliance between content providers and big tech has been formed and it could be something at play again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 3 years ago I actually agree and appreciate your response. I was just poking a little fun at the "impossible" there but Firefox absolutely has been an invaluable voice for neticens all over the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 3 years ago I actually agree and appreciate your response. I was just poking a little fun at the "impossible" there but Firefox absolutely has been an invaluable voice for neticens all over the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] tDSpPd2C9MrT8n@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent