• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, they've already won. They just haven't turned on the nuclear option yet.

    They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome, it is a way for them to disallow access to YouTube and other services via anything but an approved browser. This would include approved extensions.

    So I'll use something that isn't chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube. Making chrome and chrome derivatives via its Internet drm the only option.

        • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They killed Netscape and had to put in a toggle with the option of other browsers like 10 years later. They paid next to nothing in fines and legal battles, basically putting a stranglehold on the internet itself that took another 10 to kinda of undo.

          Not sure if that’s a “loss.”

          • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wrong decade. We’re talking about having internet explorer pre installed on windows 95 and 98. It was a really big antitrust thing.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ehh maybe, widevine exists for drm already. They will just claim its an extension of that.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome

      This will be legally challenged later, if it is not opt-in.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, probably. But it's for fighting those darned internet pirates, and the only body that seems to protect us anymore, the eu, seems to be all for that. So I'm.not expecting anything good

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are all for copyright protection, the current copyright reform act proposes automatic scanners installed to prevent copywritten content from being displayed without authorization

    • Vendul@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don‘t even worry. Some clever dudes will find a way to spoof Chrome with a Firefox extension

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It's a drm system, so we're talking end to end encryption from server to display, but for evil. It's not a spoof thing

        • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even in the US, a corporate monopoly trying to force people to use their browser will trigger an antitrust lawsuit from the government. Microsoft has already faced one for what they did with Edge, and they didn't even do DRM.

          Besides, it's YouTube. If you can't use it anymore, it's not gonna be the end of the world.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It's not that simple, it's not forcing everyone to use chrome, it's denying access to copyrighted material to drmed browsers only. This is something that already happens and no one seems to want to break things up around that. Infaft they seem to legislate more for that.

            And sure today it's youtube, but this is actually a form of drm for everything. Today youtube tomorrow everything else.

            • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              we're going to go back to needing "apps" for everything on desktops soon. desktop covered in shortcuts for every shitty service we need to use.

              God this passes me off

    • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are acting as if losing YouTube and other Google services is the end of the world. It is not. You don't need Google, even if you use Android.

    • yukichigai@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would be easy to challenge under the same reasoning as what's in the article, not to mention various anti-trust laws and ones covering anti-competitive business practices.

      Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stop them, but it's definitely not going to be as easy as them flipping a few switches and saying "watch ads on our browser with no addons or GTFO".

    • Tygr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I stopped using Chrome about 3 weeks ago. Used Edge for a while but finding out that is Chromium, I landed back on Firefox after 10 years of not using it. Just moved all my bookmarks and plugins.

      Why? Principles the moment people force me to use their software is the moment I leave.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I'll use something that isn't chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube.

      Fast track to getting people to stop using YouTube. No service or company is immune to this.