You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point
*

That’s not true - you can still use ad blockers etc as normal.

It’s also not a browser check, it’s a device check. It’s to check that the device can be trusted, like android itself hasn’t been tampered with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

That’s equally stupid though… why shouldn’t I be able to tamper with my phone’s operating system? And how is it any of a website’s business if I do?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You can tamper all you want, but apps can already block access to devices that have been tampered with. This just gives that same power to websites.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

… yes, and I am obviously very against giving that same power to websites lol. An app is built from the ground up as a UX created by the company, and that is what you are signing up for when you use an app. A browser should be a contained way of rendering data from some webserver according to a user’s preferences. Google is apparently trying to “app-ify” web protocols in order to give themselves more power over a user’s experience to the detriment of the user.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It’s literallly impossible for there to be a valid reason for a website to be entitled to know that under any circumstances.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So people with custom roms or on various Linux distros would be fucked?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Well with custom roms they already are for many apps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

True, but that’s within their own ecosystem. The internet is not owned by Google. But I guess a certain part of the majority wants it that way with how popular Chromium based browsers are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

How could it not be a browser check if the website relies on the browser to be a middle man? The WebDRM that was pushed by a terrorist organization W3C, currently requires per-browser licensing.

Per wikipedia:

EME has been highly controversial because it places a necessarily proprietary, closed decryption component which requires per-browser licensing fees into what might otherwise be an entirely open and free software ecosystem.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Firefox

!firefox@lemmy.ml

Create post

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

Community stats

  • 1.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 933

    Posts

  • 17K

    Comments

Community moderators