Google's attempt to DRM the web should fail
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ค. 2023
- news.ycombinator.com/item?id=...
github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web...
• TH-cam is fundamental...
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/...
🔵 Cheesy mugs & t-shirts: bit.ly/rossmannstore
👉 Rossmann chat: matrix.to/#/#rossmannrepair:matrix.org
👉 Equipment used:
🔵 Chair: amzn.to/3MjLrnT
🔵 Microphone: amzn.to/3g1hsok
🔵 Mic stand: amzn.to/3Vg47ZI
🔵 Audio interface: amzn.to/3VuKihx
🔵 Camera: amzn.to/3CTk1Av
🔵 Lighting: amzn.to/3RSriGC
👉 Stream FAQ: store.rossmanngroup.com/faq.txt
👉 Affiliate:
› Buying on eBay? Support us while you shop! www.rossmanngroup.com/ebay
› Rossmann Repair Group Inc is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com
👉 Leave a tip for us via cryptocurrency if we've helped you out:
› Credit card: bit.ly/postamessage
› Bitcoin: 1EaEv8DBeFfg6fE6BimEmvEFbYLkhpcvhj
› Bitcoin Cash: qzwtptwa8h0wjjawr5fsm0ku8kf40amgqgm6lx4jxh
› Dash: XwQpZuvMvU44JT7C7Uh6xHvkSadzJw9fMN
› Dogecoin: DKetsoCvwa2hF29ssgUA4Wz4hxT4kj3KLU
› Ethereum: 0x6f6870feb48f08388ee345cf0261e2f03d2fa310
› Ethereum classic: 0x671bfd61ba87edf6365c97cea33d66ba73645510
› Litecoin: LWnbTTAjojZQt68ihFJFgQq3cYHUsTcyd7
› Verge: DFumZ5sMhi3JktLQpsTVtV9xUt3zKDrcZV
› Zcash: t1Ko3FkphQYoQroQc8k2DVk4WKMAbmNR8PH
› Zcoin: a8QdvArHmdRYe1MjiqtP6jDNe6Z4JgnRKZ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.79[1/2] แก๊งไทบ้านพาบุกเมืองบั้งไฟโก้ ยโสธรรรร!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ldr3_fvTEXk/mqdefault.jpg)
People don't use Firefox? I never used anything else for about 20 years...
3% marketshare
@@rossmanngroup lets try and expand this. I'm also a Firefox user myself for many years, the last remaining well supported browser outside of chromium that is being actively developed, we have to support this. Its vital. I will fight for it I dont care if doesnt mean anything to most, but it means something to me.
Is brave okay?
@@addchannelname2052 yeah brave is alright
@@waidaracabudu1827what is globohomo
"Blocking adblockers makes things more secure"
In last 10 years or so, the only viruses I've got on my PC were FROM infected ads. Security is literally the very reason I started using adblockers in the first place.
Straight facts
absolute truth
browser should only let me view information and not execute crap on my end
Even the FBI recommends using an adblocker.
www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
Sure TH-cam ill turn of adblock. But you pay me 10K everytime i get a virus or anyother negative effect from not having it on.
@@mbos14 Honestly, this should actually happen.
Only way to get them to stop is if this bullshit costs more than they'd recoup with the ad-money - and holding them liable for damages every time they serve malicious ads would be a good way to do that, especially if it's then brought up that they implement an anti-adblock to prevent someone from mitigating the risk of those malicious ads on their service.
"Users sometimes get tricked into installing malicious software"
Google's solution: Ensure users are served ALL the fake download button ads.
Users sometimes get tricked into installing malicious software, so we’re making sure at least we get paid when they do it
Keep the masses ignorant and you can conquer them.
@@0LoneTechiirc that's the widewine media DRM used by Netflix and all right? You can disable that. Maybe even compile a version of Firefox without it (not sure, haven't compiled Firefox before)
That’s another issue with the adblocker nonsense; so many ads are just _dangerous!_ Lack of adblock is a bloody *security risk* at this point, and any attempt at disabling them will backfire *horrifically.*
They mean pirate software. Big Tech doesn’t like competition and in a walled-off garden they can charge whatever they want and you must acquire the product from them. Of course, they’re doing it for your own good.
I miss the internet. I grew up with it and it feels like your childhood friend was eaten by a skinwalker trying to convince you it is still your friend but you know all it wants is for you to let it in so it can eat you too.
remember WARES lines?
Good analogy for any corporation after they corner the market.
yeah when he said, "before you know it you don't recognize the internet" and I'm like, "we're already there." ... everything is google and wordpress, homogenized and the same looking.
the irony is:
When companies or governments asked google to pay for the news content they crawl and display, google was very vocal about how information and such should be free.
now they want the consumers to pay it suddenly isnt that important anymore...
fact that google is making the lives of ALL the users more difficult, just to stop the small amount of adblock users, really shows what kind of a company they are
Pettiness at its finest,it seems our data was not enough nowadays...
there is a much more frightening part in this: it can chose that only specific hardware can access the website.
your PC is too old? good luck. same with any phone. too old? thanks, no longer trusted, done.
and linux of course can go f itself.
ever herd of denuvo? google is not only one , they are just bigger then most others.
@@TigerheartyPlease self-terminate at your earliest convenience!
Pretty sure the goal isnt adblockers…
Google has no shame. The removal of "dont be evil" was the canary.
That only happened after they went down that path.
No, Google was very obviously going to be a problem going all the way back to 2001 and their conduct with HTML 5 and CSS 3.
They never removed it, it was just moved. Them saying that doesn't mean anything one way or another, and that should be obvious to anyone with a brain. Either way, it's so annoying to hear you people parrot the same misinformation over and over again just because you read it once and it sounded good in your head. It's still there, feel free to actually spend 30 seconds checking for yourself.
@@susangoaway A canary only sings after there's a gas leak so not far off
What do you mean "you people" are you not a person yourself? Why are you distancing yourself from your fellow human? Probably just a comment bot, and if not you sure act like one. I don't know which is sadder.
I am an optimist but I do think more people are becoming aware of how shady mega corporations are. I've always been a tech person but I've noticed more and more of my "normie" friends are doing things like using vpn's, ditching chrome, and generally being more privacy minded. It's obviously not enough to fight google but I think a lot of people are realizing how dangerous these companies are.
It might just be your echo chamber, i.e. you have friends that are generally more tech savvy than the average Joe.
The end is nigh.
You think vpns aren't run by mega corps? Ditching chrome instead of using a chromium based browser that's entirely open source run by OTHER privacy minded people is just pushing yourself into ANOTHER corporation, namely mozilla and microsoft.
People need to realise that the "internet" at it's core is just tcp/ip and UDP. HTTP is a layer on top of that, HTML is a language transported along that protocol, javascript is just a layer on top of html, etc. If you want to communicate, IRC still works just as well as it did 40 years ago (because it only leverages TCP/IP) you can share files/photos using DCC within this framework too (none of which requires a third party unless you're behind a NAT), is completely encryptable in order to allow privacy. FTP works just as well as it did 40 years ago if you want to share files/photos with access control. There's plenty of open source VOIP software that would allow voice chatting without a third party.
At the end of the day, convenience comes at a price, and if you're not willing to pay that price, someone has to pay that price for you, if you're not willing to allow a third party to pay that price, you've got to pay it yourself.
They're using VPNs because of massive marketing budgets and ad campaigns of VPN companies, not because they actually have an interest in security.
@holyknighthodrick5223 its not that more young people are tech savvy, its just that some of the most tech savvy people are young because we grew up with the tech. People often get that confused. Most young people these days are retarded though and the extent of their technological knowledge is tiktok.
After they killed my entire security system right after I purchased it, I’m actually genuinely impressed that they were able to make me hate them more.
nest is soooooo bad
Your comment got liked 69 times.
2023 08 10 the count has risen to 109.
I am the 169th like
Google casually trying to destroy the internet for the 100th time. We just gotta casually fight the old man google again.
How many times DO WE HAVE TO TEACH YOU THIS LESSON, OLD MAN?!
@@flaturiahgoogle: "I don't want to be a burden."
Everyone: **angry mob intensifies**
No. We must be old man…we must yell at cloud.
Meh
Google is just trying to distract from the fact that they've been committing billions of dollars of ad sales fraud while engaging in unfair trade practices
Nice pfp
They don't want you surfing the web. They want you to be locked into their little controlled ecosystems/apps.
this is fr
Second this, the gradual rise of restrictive measures has an ominous end game. Terms & Conditions certainly do apply.. ffs.
No. They _want_ to get paid. Louis has been advocating adblockers to ensure they don't get paid. They are trying to set it up so that, if you can use an adblocker, you can't get their content. Now, you _could_ respond with "I don't need your stinking content anyway' there are other sites a thousand times better." But you don't. You complain that your little five-fingered discount isn't working any more.
Say goodbye to open source and warez software. Side-loading software will be banned in a Big Tech-controlled ecosystem. Play by their rules or else. You’ve been duly warned.
I got an iPhone 3 years ago. At first I loved it but that changed after seeing how they tried to become/force the ONE company for everything digital with zero customization, I was out.
This kinda feels like that.
People were opening issues on their github, so now they've resorted to closing the issues and:
"Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators"
Yes, that’s ridiculous (other than being against their code of conduct)
I started with Firefox, I'm staying with Firefox. Try as you may, I'm not switching.
If they do manage to DRM the web, I'm pretty sure peoples are going to manage to bypass it. A game of cat and mouses.
librewolf.net/
I'm switching off all chromium based browsers myself over the next week. No more brave.
Firefox and it's forks MUST survive!
The mullvad browser is pretty solid for privacy based on Firefox with help from the Tor project
No people can bypass certificate authorities, this is how https works and it is secure because of that. It is basically reverse https, where server will verify the browser too.
@@kanstantsin-buchawhat do certificates have to do with this?
I really hope that EU bureaucrats step in and squash Google's monopolistic ambitions.
My dear friend they will welcome it with open arms. They will demand controle.
If anything, the EU (and the WEF) is salivating at this.
Not really. Please get head out of ass and look at all recent EU acts. Most of them are aimed at this sort of behaviour.
My comment was meant for response above me btw
@@geminidreik2608 Nah, EU has a pretty decent track record at this, other than that they'll be (way too) slow.
Being able to install an OS of your choice on *any* device that runs an OS is just as important as Right to Repair. I’m glad you mentioned that, since almost no one speaks about it these days.
Yeah, if Google releases a new Chromebook model that won't let me install something other than that piece of shit ChromeOS crap then I'm going back to Hewlett Packard
Yes this proposal is truly egregious. A couple years there was talk about adding standards for government spying, and the IAB response was RFC8890, "The Internet is for End Users", essentially saying that the needs of users are more important than governments, companies, etc. I think this proposal flies directly in the face of that. Hopefully it will get smacked down for exactly that reason.
It isn't only DRM it is worse. This thing not only implements DRM-like functionality but also allows device tracking on never before seen scale by identifying hardware. This would allow consortiums of advertisers to track you without the use of cookies by combining data from multiple tracking companies. Imagine ads following you for multiple years till you change the device's ID by replacing it. What time to be alive!
*shudders*
"ads following you for multiple years"
I've shown my dad how cookies that are almost 2 years old are stored in his browser. Firefox by the way.
@@flameshana9 Damn
And even if you did replace it if you researched the part before or bought it online they could easily tie it to you and continue to track you
think about the hardware ID being tied to someone who didn't even have all that... and the thing someone who owned it previously saw was a bunch of kiddie porn... seems just like a firearm registry... just gotta punish someone, doesn't matter if it is not the right one.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
This sounds like Google wants to make planned obsolescence a built in feature. If Google can decide whether your device is viable for their network and they can say that your device is 4 years old and that's now too old to work on the internet.
And they can force you to see non stop ads about products that would comply.... for a few years.
Disgusting
You sounds like this not happening already 😅
As a retro trash enthusiast I’ve recently tried to watch something on iOS 7 device.
Guess what. Neither Chrome or YT app work anymore but I managed to use different browser (not affiliated with google).
They already do that on handheld devices with Android. They already refused me access to TH-cam on my old tablet until I install their newest Chrome, which is impossible without updating the operating system first (because my current one isn't supported by Chrome anymore), which also is not possible because this is the latest version of Android supported on this particular device :q Long story short, no more TH-cam (or any other Google disservices, for that matter) for me on that device :P All I can do on it now is read ebooks and play cookie clicker :q And even that becomes harder and harder every day, because pretty much every PDF browser from the top ~50 is either premium or stuffed with ads to the brim :q
@@bonbonpony You still don't have F-Droid?
@@bootmii98 What does an app repository have to do with the fact that my device (Alcatel Pixi 3 7") isn't even supported by newer Android versions? :q Even if I somehow managed to download and install Chrome on that device with F-Droid, I'm pretty sure it would not run on that old system anyway.
The ad driven internet is the problem, not the fact we want to block the ads.
So poor people should have less access to the internet???
@@cryptofacts4u a good portion of those ads are malicious. Some ads will even force you to click them and open websites that WILL attempt to download and run shit on your computer.
@@heill232 my question still stands. Should poor people have less access to the Internet than richer people who can afford to pay per website visited?
Cause that was the alternative model for the Internet. Pay per webpage rather than ad driven
What's your alternative to an ad driven internet that doesn't lead to poor people having less access to the internet???????
@@cryptofacts4uYes. Internet access is a privilege.
@@cryptofacts4u ad servers having the bare minimum in quality assurance so ads arent intrusive and hostile. These companies make so much money that implementing an api similar to how adblockers target malicious ads now would be trivial, but they dont because they can skim another cent.
DRM for a website would stop us from making user scripts. It would also stop us from web scraping. It would be really bad and actually affect me quite negatively as a programmer. It would also let them track you, and you wouldn't even know.
Network engineer. DRM for websites is just the tip of the spear. What these shitty corps have in store for us is monstrous. It all comes down to how can they suck more money out of people while increasing their control of the internet (which increases their power). Given a chance they will wreck (meaning make the internet effectively unusable) the internet.
annoying sites that disable context menu and select would have wet dreams on this. Thank god google abandoned it. DRM does not belong on the web.
Google’s search results have become so polluted with sponsored sites, things for sale, and ads that it’s all but useless now. I find myself having to search through their search results to get anything relevant more and more. And, when I ask for something VERY specific, they don’t find it.
That's why I just use DuckDuckGo
its not a search engine, its a pitch engine
DuckDuckGo mate
@@K0D0R0 DuckDuckGo got in some sh*t for censoring stuff a couple years back, pretty sure they admitted to it aswell.
@@K0D0R0they became CuckCuckGucci a long ago.
They did such a great job on their TH-cam copyright system I can't wait to see how they manage the whole internet
Jesus christ I don't think i've ever seen this much sarcasm in one sentance. You killed them xD
I heard once that sarcasm is the lowest and worst kind of humour... I'm still puzzled to this day, why would it be, this is beautiful work sir, keep on going.
@@ped7gThat's the cop out you get from people who don't understand it.
@@ped7g Maybe that statement was sarcasm as well? ;J
@@ped7g BAD sarcasm is the lowest and worst kind of humour. GOOD sarcasm like the OP belongs in the top for humour imo. :P
It's bigger than just ads. And it's the reason TPM is required for Win11+. They want everyone ID'd across the internet. And they want to control what content you get to post and consume, no matter where you are on the web.
omg one more reason to stick to windows 10😳
No worry you can removed them , googel rufus how to disable all win 11 stuf
@@Medstudent2024 I mean there are plenty of reasons Windows 10 was moving in a bad direction and why you should have stuck to Windows 7. The problem is Windows 10 will stop being supported just as Windows 7 was and you'll be forced onto Windows 11, but at least it probably won't be as bad as whatever version of Windows comes after that!
@@theodis8134they can't just brick your windows 10 Computer.
One major piece you are missing is visitor stitching. Blocking an Ad, small potatoes. Blocking user behavior over time is everything to these companies (I worked for Adobe for 9 years in the Analytics wing of their business).
So yes, they want to stop ad blocking, but they care more about tracking your behavior across devices. This is why they want to talk about proving who you are and staying logged in across devices.
Yeah, Adobe's involvement in the tracking industry is why I dropped their viewing products . The asshole subscription model is why I decided to never recommend their creation tools either . 3rd party viewers and editors all the way .
I've said this many times before. The metaphor that we visit websites is fundamentally flawed.
We do not visit websites. We invite them into our browsers. We allow them to use our internet bandwidth, CPU cycles, and battery power. We should be in charge of what the websites are allowed to do on our systems. It's like inviting someone to a party, and the guest brings a "friend" who paid your guest to tag along, and that "friend" then starts rummaging through the closets (privacy invasion), drinks all the beer (using up bandwidth) and breaks the coffee table (malware), so you get a bouncer to keep that guy out (ad blockers).
The language Google uses here is deliberately deceptive. Of course I want integrity. of course I want my browser and my "web environment" to be secured! But I want my browser to ensure that the website can not do certain things without my consent on my system. This does the opposite, even though it sounds reasonable on a surface level.
I think, this analogy is not helpful. With this proposal it is still the case, the visitor can't do everything in your home. The visitor just decides, your home does not look safe to me, i better not go in.
I disagree, but I think I get what you're saying. You are assuming the visitor is capable of judging what is "safe", rather than relying on "gut instinct" and such like.
The whole ads/malware discussion aside, YOU are visiting their site. It's not the website 'visiting' your browser. That's a completely backwards view on how a website works. Also that server runs a lot more CPU cycles to service your page requests than your browsers needs to display them.
@@tobiasrietveld3819 dude you literally do a request to the website (hypter text transfer protocal - http) to get the text of the website, your browser is the thing that does the rendering, your computer is the one that runs the client-side scripts. Sure there is an interaction between the client and the server but fundamentally the webpage is running on your computer. Any interaction between your computer and the server is a request to get information back which in turn results in your computer behaving differently depending on the information, or a post to give the server some information. If the server wants to do some computation depending on what is asked of it or what it gets then by all means it can do as it wants, it's their server after all. But this is my computer. I can make it do what I want.
@@Happydrumstick93That is not true though. Chrome is a google tool (software) which has 90%+ marketcap. They can decide what they want to do with it.
If you want to decide what a website does on your computer (such as rendering) its quite simple. Build your own browser engine. Most companies gave up since its an insane task to do so its not worth the hassle.
When the company's whole revenue model is ad based they wanna sell me that this move is for "security".....yeahhh
Adverts and data.
Thing is, this sort of crap always happens independent of the revenue model, it's always the greedy companies wanting more money, Honestly it feels like money is the root of all evil and should be expunged
But it IS for security - THEIR ad revenue security.
"For your safety"
Next comes "Think if the children!"
100% agree that this is DRM for the internet. I also remember browser spoofing. I also remember when Google's search result was relevant to my search versus something pushed or promoted based on ads.
I watched this video via Brave. I have convinced several friends and family members to change to something different with lasting effect. If everyone did this, the numbers will grow in resistence to these initiatives.
Never give up. Never surrender.
@mclements369 We use Firefox because a long time ago a friend suggested it, and we've never left it.
I'm using Firefox only when old web DRM forces browser to be "Firefox, Chrome or Safari", otherwise I use one of the few independent browsers not built on Google specs .
Part of this is because websites are using more and more bandwidth due to bloated HTML & Javascript. More & stricter ads are needed to cover the costs.
Code bloat causes other problems too - it has basically the same effects as planned obsolescence. Make HTML simple again.
totally agree, especially on web app sites, twitter, for example. No wonder why nitter exists.
I really feel like a monopoly case needs to be made because they control so much that they can just move once and force everyone into lockstep with them
So dam with you ; negative monopolizing is so bad.. they are so lucky that death is the only thing holding me back otherwise; Id literally march right into those fucking headquarters no fucks given and give them a mouth full.. companies need to stop being money-centric and be more anatomically aware of there fucking products... no joke.
Of course I click because there’s “2 replies” but they’re both censored because TH-cam freaking sucks and won’t let them show up
Well just take a look at the recent FTC case against Microsoft acquisition of Activision for $69Bn. The FTC tried to take them to court to block it, but the judge found some ridiculous angle to look at it from where the consolidation of one of the two biggest software giants in an increasingly consolidated market somehow wasn't anticompetitive and bad for the consumer. Yeah he FTC didn't do a great job with their lawyers, but this should have been a slam dunk. There are so many insane judges like this out there who don't believe in antitrust ....it's a big part of why antitrust laws aren't being enforced. Nobody expects judges to side with the regulators.
I remember back in the 90s the FTC sued Microsoft and threatened to break them up over the anticompetitive scumbaggery they were engaged in. They narrowly avoided being broken up. They're WAY worse as a company now and the regulator is afraid to do anything.
@@spagooter1807 yeah, every time you see a reply section that says “1 reply” but you click and it’s nothing? It’s just TH-cam deciding it doesn’t want you to see those comments. It’s like a comment shadowban
@@domm6812 that’s because it was Sony trying to stop them. Sony was trying to convince the FTC that it was hurting competition when Sony was the market leader and Microsoft was last place (even behind Nintendo). as it turns out, the FTC is supposed to fight for consumers, not big corporations, so it makes sense why the judge acted the way they did.
And people wonder why I use Firefox.
No. People don't wonder why you use Firefox. Nobody asked what browser you use. Nobody cares what browser you use. Shut up.
Firefox is funded by google and stuff stop working. They remove feature "people don't use" all the time. So i've switched to waterfox and everything I use seems to be working.
@@WetaMantisis that on android?
@@WetaMantis isn't waterfox owned by an ad company?
Brave is the best, even though it is based off of chromium
This also makes me wonder about the state of affairs at Alphabet right now. I think it was you that said it: "When you start looking for nickels and dimes in the couch, your business is doomed."
I think we're seeing that. The whispers of deleting old TH-cam channels, the scandal with their "Premium Ads" thing, and this... this is too sudden and too drastic to be greed alone. This feels like desperation to me.
Sometimes I imagine what it'd be like to live in a cyberpunk dystopia, then I open the news and remember I don't have to
I remember the old "Dont be evil" slogan. When they changed it to "Do the right thing" I immediately thought this was a leagal cop-out. Forcing this would be evil, however they can easily argue that it's "the right thing"..
Evil typically believes they're doing the right thing. They saw profit and more importantly power in doing evil and therefore thought not doing evil was limiting them.
I mean, I don't think "evil" is a legal term, but it is nonetheless interesting that they would change it like that, almost as if they're trying to convey the message as loud and clear as possible in a cartoonish evil sort of way
In my opinion, the real change was that Google optimised their original slogan, by simply deleting the characters "n't". Clearly they only did that to save 3 characters....
They did a good job at cloaking this proposal in jargon so the average person has no clue what they're saying and only understand the "We're removing bots and cheaters from the internet" part. I got this shit sent to me by a friend telling me he had no idea what they were talking about, but had a feeling it wasn't good. We need more people publicly spreading this and helping translate it into human so everyone knows just what's happening, the last thing the internet needs is an OS level user ID.
keep in mind, fingerprinting like this already does exist to some extent but there are still ways to obfuscate that information. What google wants to do is force everyone to give that information to them. It's already tough enough to stay even relatively private but this will probably be the death of anonymity on the web if it's widely adopted.
I follow Chrome development, and saw their post, and just thought “hm, why are they wanting to protect the inner website from the user?” But didn’t put two and two together out of sheer naivety.
@@UliTroyo I can't blame you. I feel like I got a decent grasp on tech jargon by now and even then, it was like trying to read a foreign language. They obfuscated their true intentions really hard. It's disgusting and they know it.
Correction: Manifest V3 is a standard also coming to Firefox, but Mozilla is going to allow use of Manifest V2 for longer. At this point, Firefox/Gecko and Chromium/Blink are so similar that they use almost all of the same technologies and standards. In fact, tech giants, including Mozilla, use the word “interoperable” in this context to mean “the exact same” and “compatible” to refer to anything that is functionally the same but different under the hood. As they strive for interoperability-which Mozilla has stated is one of its goals-choice increasingly becomes an illusion.
Yeah but V3 isn't the problem in itself, the problem is that chromium browsers cease to support V2, and adblockers can't work the same under V3. So, continuing to support V2 really is the thing that matters. The presence of V3 itself, and possibly other extensions using it, doesn't make any difference for a V2 adblocker in Firefox.
Remember when Google used “don’t be evil” as their motto & their corporate code of conduct? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
We NEED young people to have better technical literacy, and to understand what the consequences are of using an Internet service. Most people just accept everything Google does because they see them as "the nerds who know what they're doing"
The truth is the young only know how it is now, so they dont know what true Software Freedom is nor do most care as long as they can use the apps they are accustomed too. I was like that till I was introduced to LInux by my Dad. It also helps that I always loved programming. Linux is easier to setup dev stuff then apple was back then.
The scary thing is that because everything has become an appliance or app and "just happens" as if it were magic, we seem to be going downhill, a lot of young people seem to be less tech savvy, unlike millennials and Gen Xers who had to learn the hard way to get things to work when they were young.
@@davidshepherd265 app is application so , I suppose you mean since the rise of mobile devices people have become less technicall. The problem only going to get worst with chatgpt Larg Languange Models. I can just train the ai and it just knows things. No programming required. People forget, you have to program the tool to enable it to learn though.
young people have more integrity about tech than older people like boomers lol, im just 22yo and didnt have internet until i was 12 yo or so, and i do care about these things, and i know that if i explained this to my partner or my mom, my partner would at least understand the basics while my mom would not understand a single word so yeah, lol
@@computernerd8157 When I say "app" I mean the variety that runs on a phone or tablet. Before I got out of tech I noticed that Gen Z's who are mostly exposed to technology via things such as phones and tablets have no concept of say, a filesystem with directories and the like and how it works. Unless they end up getting into tech a lot of them have no idea as to how the Internet or networks work, "WiFi" is just a magic box that just works. It does worry me that at some point we're going to have a shortage of tech savvy people because everything has become too much of an appliance and there's no incentive to learn, worse still phones and tablets don't allow for the level of tinkering and experimentation that PCs do/did (and even older laptops), which I know was critical to my learning my way around technology when I was young. The introduction of DRM into, well, everything doesn't help either. With every aspect of tech becoming more and more locked down, young people today just don't get the learning opportunities we did unless they actively seek them out.
If google decides to DRM the web, there's nothing stopping us from going after other companies for outrageous bullshit that never got a legal precedent in the first place. Emulation and physical game media being two topics I can think of.
lmfao nobody is going to do shit
@@niczvr Solarpunk future FTW
@@niczvr I'm happy I am not the only one that recognizes this as the Gibsonian future that was fun to read about but that none of us really want to live in.
google is being fucking shitty all because of a small amount of people who block ads i know for a fact that a majority of the users dont block ads google needs to stop being this fucking braindead
@@3DKLUByou're a goober. Solar isn't sustainable without a battery revolution
And the risk isn't just about ads viruses, It's also about the ideological viruses that I don't want my family and I to get exposed to, which are MORE important than just a computer virus.
Well, google did remove "do no evil" from their company motto years ago. Now they are literally doing evil.
Also, is it just me, or is Louis a lot quieter in this video than usual?
Why does every company feel the need to make everyone hate them all the sudden? At least they tried to keep us content before
Revenue streams. Back in an earlier age companies could sell perpetual software licences because the software would be obsolete after a couple of years and everyone would have to buy a new version anyway. That doesn't work any more, so now the money is in providing services instead - turn every user into a small but ongoing revenue stream.
The free money from investors has dried up because we are in a "totally not a recession, trust me bro" situation. Ad revenue has tanked massively and this is also a big issue for a company that lives off ads
Darpa
@@vylbird8014That's correct. Software never ages. I still run Paint Shop Pro 5, which I use to run on Win 95 25 y ago.
Now, I run it through WINE on Linux.
On a rare occasion, I use Krita but I am not too familiar with it.
Enshittification
I remember when Microsoft made the windows store DRM and how it was for better security and whatever else.
When I reinstalled windows I could not play the game (Think it was Gears of War 4) and it took up 128GB of my HDD, which, at the time was a lot of space of my entire computer which I think had 1.5TB total between work & games.
I couldn't uninstall the game, I couldn't delete the game, I couldn't move it, I couldn't do anything because "I didn't have permission" I spent a lot of time trying to give, myself permission- and I have plenty of experience with PCs and how to handle stuff like this- TYPICALLY anyway. I had to do a lot of crap to get it off my machine.
Their DRM was so, 'good' that it literally locked off a portion of my computer for data I couldn't access, delete, anything. Security, my ass.
Google and security?
They spent how long sitting on their ass when bots were plaguing youtube? Saying nothing on it? "it's hard to deal with bots" GOOGLE OWNS CAPTCHA, implement that, do SOMETHING, AT ALL. Nothing? Letting tons of users get scammed- having channels get blamed for it?
But sure this new thing is about security
What's a windows store?
Sounds like bloat
Yeah same thing happened to me when I tried out Game Pass. If you don't remove the game from within their app, its going to take a lot of messing around to do it manually. I had to Google around and it took a while to figure out how to take ownership of the folders to delete them.
Did you try administrator account (root). I mean drm does provide security it's just for piracy. Drm isn't about protecting your security or privacy
About the permission stuff, couldn't you just mount the drive on a live Linux distro and delete whatever from it? Maybe I'm mistaken
Damn, I haven't used windows in forever, had no idea it was that bad. An admin/root account should be able to do Literally Anything on a PC. I should be able to delete my fucking bootloader, much less a video game. If you still have this issue, you could probably mount the NTFS partition in a Linux live usb to delete the game, since it won't enforce windows file permissions
I remember when it seemed most of us felt this way and were aware of how companies were trying to hijack the internet and control it. Then AOL happened, and it all went downhill from there. Every idiot got a computer and a modem and slowly the internet became over commercialized. I used to be able to use any search engine to research a subject by searching on that particular subject and I got results filled with websites, forums, BBBs, etc with information on that subject, now I just get results of sites that sell stuff related to that subject. I really do miss the old days of the internet before it became a place for lonely people to find social interaction. Those AOL chatrooms/profiles started the downfall and ushered in the modern social web (Internet 2.0 as they called it back then).
I had AOL on my C64 in 1985. It was known as "Quantum LInk" or "Q-Link" back then, before the name change. If you're wondering, yes, my brothers and I had to write apology letters often to regain service. heh
At the DRM seems to be happening at the same time as the premium price hike for everyoneeee, which means they can force people to abandon Adblock so they will have to pay for premium (since you get ads every 5 minutes or less on every video now)
The biggest problem I found with TH-cam is that I post a comment on every video I watch out of habit since the early days of 2006 but now they just disappear because when I go to try to edit them I always get an error constantly, because I said a word or phrase that Google didn’t like. It is incredibly frustrating.
Most of the time I feel like I’m living in 1984 when I’m using TH-cam now with the amount of censorship that I see
I began using Brave because of Louis.
The fact that it doesn't even cross their mind that people visit websites that aren't ran by giant corporations is telling
They only serve other website results because current social media is half-collapsed.
aren't run*
@@encycl07pedia- BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!!!
it's kind of true though, blogs are mostly dead and replaced by SEO optimized text sites with zero information. Most of the useful info is on a few sites or in the Internet Archive's archived version of the old blogs. When Reddit was on strike the Google people noticed how the userbase was more angry because they could not find useful info.
Right, they see the internet as a Pie, and they want the whole fucking thing.
Google has always been bad, but its shocking how quickly they went from bad to comically villainous, over the course of a couple months. The quirky California start-up now realizes they practically own all of the internet.
The XKCD is not relevant anymore. They ARE evil.
censorship
Months? Years. It's just ramping up faster now. They've been evil for ages.
The common complaints against DRM include: User rights restriction: DRM technologies restrict users' ability to use and access digital content even if such action is legal under copyright law.Apr 22, 2023. DRM is an another FACADE to cover up it's real INTENT AND GOAL which is indirect and subtle "CENSORSHIP!" This is in violation of the 1st Amendment which mandates freedom of information access and freedom of information sharing and freedom of dissemination of information to allow information TO REACH THE MASSES. They are imposing what we call as an ILLEGAL EVERGREEINING OF PATENTING OF INFORMATION EVEN WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OWNERS WHO MIGHT WANTED THEIR INFORMATION TO BE MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that this DRM is an INDIRECT FORM OF CENSORSHIP? And this DRM form of INDIRECT CENSORSHIP CAME AT A TIME WHEN AMERICA IS NEARING THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS? And the fact that Russia is right that it is in the right side of HISTORY and it is right to say we are in a "TRANSITION PERIOD" between Ice Ages that only Russia has been preparing and is able and capable of surviving and thriving?
Google doesn't own all of the Internet. You need to wean yourself off Google products immediately if you think they're that powerful. They should not have that much control over your life.
It’s so close to what we saw with the pandemic, only worse. It we thought unapproved thoughts being censored was bad, wait for Google to be able to suppress even more.
They somehow managed to fit the entire unholy trinity of adblock blocking, browser monopoly and fingerprinting in this single proposal
Doesnt 3 of 2 make it technically makes it illegal?, specially browser monopoly?
@@superninja252 who cares, who's gonna regulate google? the user pushback would be insane if it was blocked
@@fppt1555 hmm, how about threatening doing with them what Microsoft was threatened by because of the browser wars
breaking their individual business units up into individual companies
@@superninja252 monopolies are barely if at all regulated in america anymore, but this might be egregious enough for them to actually get some punishment, but even then probably no one would go after them
@@fppt1555 EU might. EU does not like US corporations having monopoly over EU citizens.
So annoying that in more and more areas of life *censorship, restrictions, control and surveilance* is sold as _mandatory security and privacy updates_
This reminds me of a quote from _Star Trek._ It doesn’t *exactly* match this situation…but it’s pretty close.
“‘A matter of internal security’ - the age old cry of the oppressor.”
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
You mentioned it being an old thing where specific websites would make you open it in specific browsers, I've ran into websites that intentionally make their website not work with firefox on multiple occasions in the last couple months and I had to make my browser spoof that it's chrome for the website and the site suddenly started working. And I've ran into one website a while back that detected when you were attempting to spoof that you were using chrome while using firefox. Luckily, someone else had also ran into something like that and I was able to follow their instructions to spoof it as chrome in a different way and then the site worked again. The fact that there are site owners that will explicitly break their sites if you're not using chrome baffles me.
That should be illegal
After the big sites join on, they will probably strong-arm a lot of smaller websites through de-ranking threats if they don't conform to the new standards. I do take comfort that open-source UI has vastly improved since the old internet.
Ahh, I remember the good ole days of when HTML was just HTML and any browser could read it. It might not display the exact same way but it worked.
It still works that way. But nobody making content wants to use it that way. The number of people I've seen complaining that users won't upgrade their browser to what just came out last week so they can use the latest CSS BS is astounding.
@@darrennew8211 great point
This still can be done: we can still make our own HTML websites with actual content and browse it with any browser. All we need to do is say "bye bye" to the restrictive corponet. They clearly don't want us there :q The only real question is whether you have balls to do that :q
And then you remember you had to essentially write 5 different websites to support every major browser on the market, but you only got paid for one, and you think standardisation is a good thing. And then you remember that standardisation when done by just ONE company to serve their murky agenda is evil AF, and you start thinking "maybe writing 5 websites for the price of one wasn't as bad as I remember it."
Full circle, my friend. Full circle.
@@B3RyL _"and you think standardisation is a good thing"_
It is, but only when it comes bottom-up instead of top-down. When something becomes a standard because everyone chooses to use it anyway as the best solution out of existing solutions (i.e. a _de facto_ standard). It used to be that way in the old Internet, where when someone come up with some new idea and implemented it, published an RFC (Request For Comments), which was basically a plain text file documenting everything about that thing that everyone else could implement it as well, if they found it to be a good idea too. And that's how this shall work: standards should be descriptive, not prescriptive. I.e. describe and document existing solutions so that other people could implement them too, instead of being enforced by Teh Rulerz Of The Webz upon their wlebs :q
This is MUCH MUCH worse than DRM. It's perfect user ID. They want to control your access to information in addition to your ability to speak. This also links your ability to use money to the desirability of your beliefs.
Putin, Orbán, Lukashenko, Erdogan, Duda and the rest filled with joy that they can finally squash LGBT people from being able to exist at least online.
this mean you van get banned from the web...
You are wrong-thinking.
Please remain where you are and the ministry will be with you soon.
This is absolutely NOT a message from the control chip in my brain... (help me!)
Yep, you summed it up. This should be incredibly alarming to everyone, but it's shocking how conditioned everyone's become to accepting things that are hand waived away as "safety".
This makes Nintendo looks like a good, more open company
It's getting to the point where the "Dark" web is the only real internet left, at least the way we remember it. And it's not as evil and scary as people make it out to be.
The difference between malicious advertisers and the people they target with malware, as far as Google is concerned, is that the former pay money for the latter to see their ads. And that's all they care about.
Nearly 15 years ago, my family used Firefox, and I made one of the biggest mistakes of my life in selling them on Chrome. But their main holdout was adblock, and the way I got them over was I figured out how to install adblock on Chrome.
Do not underestimate the power of an adblocker. Google delayed Manifest v3 because they know that adblock breaking would have actually driven a mass exodus off Chrome. Like you said, people only switch when this affects them, and Manifest v3 would have affected them.
Which means there is actually a way for a small group of like-minded individuals to change the course of history here. Those individuals are the adblock developers. They need to protest and switch off all adblockers, indefinitely, and guide people to Firefox. That would be one of the very few ways to finally rip control out of Google's hands and put it into that of an _actually_ open source project.
@@canadianvice I don't really get it, I had to use chromium a few times to do a discord screenshare with audio, it seemed way less configurable, I think I don't even remember a setting to not save history or cookies/ clear on quit
that is actually an ammunition worth taking a few shots with. but they have to be good ones
trying to prevent the Manifest v3 changes was a mistake
Sounds like a fair strategy, but it wont work alone. Turning off adblock would create some movement, but people need a positive reason to move or they'll just come back eventually. Remember, Google owns the ads - they really have all the control. If they want to go to war, then they can take a temporary hit to the wallet, release their own ad blocker, and then tighten the reigns after the competitors are crushed.
lmao no way all ad blocker devs would join a protest, many of them (I'm looking at you, ABP and Ghostery) would stay on Chrome no matter what
Like with most DRM, this sounds like something that’s very easy to get around for pirates, and a massive pain for everyone else.
That's what I was thinking. I'm sure it'd be sooooo hard to make the Linux kernel attest to whatever you want.
@@vampiresRsolame If I understand the proposal correctly, it won't matter. Since the one doing the attestation needs to identify itself (ex: com.ubuntu.linux.22_04lts - 5:56 in the video), anyone who gets a reputation of blindly attesting to everything will get blocked as untrustworthy. I'm sure Google would be happy to centralize the blocklist too, so everyone gets the benefit of blocking those darn untrustworthy apps. /s
The next step in that war is to identify as someone else (someone trustworthy) in order to get around this, and then Google will happily swoop in to provide a certificate you can sign your attestation with, proving you are the owner of that ID. For a fee, of course. (Similar to how SSL cert chains work today.)
I will actually be surprised if that functionality is not included in the very first version. I suspect the only way to "get around" this is to just not visit those sites.
I don't know about that. Google has been working on finding the holy grail of data mining for years now. They want something that is incredibly hard to get around, so I'd be surprised if they pick something that's trivial to bypass. I think it all depends on how much uptake there is for this. If too many big websites fall in line and users just accept it, it'll spread like the plague. And I imagine it will be a huge headache to bypass ...that's their goal anyway.
@@domm6812 Pirates get around DRM on games that cost millions of dollars to develop, headaches are kinda their thing.
@@allak1n the difference between game drm and an internet drm is that single player games don’t require a connection to some external server to work and you already downloaded the necessary files to get the program to run anyway. As far as I’m aware no one has ever pirated a fully functional copy of a multiplayer game that requires an account and made it work for long before getting banned. If you are connecting to a system that entirely blocks access or limits functionality if you don’t connect to it correctly you are SOL.
You're right about this being about blocking adblockers. After reading their ideas on how to do the "attestation" I think the idea is also to prevent device wide adblocking with Adblockers on rooted phones. Play integrity api is a huge pain in the neck with various root software. That seems to be one of the goals of this idea.
Play Store Integrity is so evil I've had it turned off for as long as possible . Now they want to restrict one of Android's permissions to "Apps from stores only" .
I've been preparing for the internet to collapse for over a decade now. Collecting physical media for when I just give up on youtube and the internet. But to be honest I didn't think it was going to be google destroying it. I thought it would be boarders.
*This has the same evil vibe as AOL blocking access to the general Internet, forcing users to remain in its walled garden and CompuServe's even earlier malicious behaviours.*
CompuServe is owned by AOL at one point
@@joshallen128 *Yep. Forgot that bit of monopoly.*
That's exactly it, isn't it? We are degenerating back to the early days of internet monopolies, except even worse because it now has the institutional backing of governments and billionaire financed NGOs all of whom want system of total information control and breads and circuses entertainment scientifically engineered to maximize dopamine addiction.
I think googles end game is to kill the browser and go explicitly app based so they have the most control.
good, can't wait for app clones that remove their BS lol
That sounds like Apple's plan as well.
@@DragoNate except they control the store and could add requirements for your app if you want to be in their store.
Electron just reinforces this
@@DragoNate not good at all, are you a complete idiot? browsers are a universal standard to access any content, apps restrict content to one source
A friend of mine was using firefox but getting a ton of ads, not just on TH-cam but also news websites and other stuff. I was a bit baffled and asked her if she was using an ad blocker and she said: "of course, I'm using adblock!". She didn't know that adblock cut a deal a few years ago to let websites pay for them to display ads. I uninstalled it and got her to install ublock origin as well as sponsorblock and she was blown away. I can't ever imagine going back to a time before proper ad blockers, I'd rather pierce my brain out.
Basically every browser will be treated the way that Tor has been treated for a long time.
@@fictionindianspaceprogram-222 Try to use Google with Tor.
If you did you'd see that Google is unusable because it will not let you get passed a captcha screen.
Stuff like that happens all the time, on a ton of different sites, trying to browse the clear web with tor.
One of the things I hate the most about phone's ecosystem is when applications just deny you the ability to take screenshots; record videos or use basic features from your phone under the idea of 'security measurements'. If google dares to do the same on any web-browser with access to google web-searcher, I would absolutely ditch to duck go or any other viable or new browser. What horrible news
be carefull with your forecasts or integrated webcams become mandatory for your safety ofc
I use BlueStacks emulator with a 3rd party capture software to screenshot apps that block it 😂
@@anthonybf2 yeah, I've done that too, but is not soo conventional, as you still gotta do it through a computer
@@anthonybf2 I´m simply using any 3rd party screenshot app that runs with root privileges.
@@anthonybf2👉🧠➕
So by Google's logic, we should be paying shopkeepers to enter their store and browse their products because they have to cover rent.
Actually you should be paying shopkeepers to put up advertizements for their store on your front lawn, but close enough
Ecommerce sites dont rely on ads. But all the independent websites that provide free services and information do, as do all the TH-camrs and other content creators.
I remember the birth of the internet and how AOL (America Online) was the supposed end all do all for the internet. Far to many people got into the internet because of AOL and that was all they really knew and understood at that time. Even then they were tracking all that you did on your account and it was also the birth of the targeted advertising. People barely even heard of Netscape or other web browsers so they didn't check into them. Once AOL basically died out and the other web browsers came into more light there was the flood of web browsers while the oldest ones were bought up or died off the newer ones had more features.
Also during that time Microsoft was attempting to force people into using their "built in web browser" by design of the websites. If internet Exploder wasn't being used the website would block you form access. they have attempted to funnel the end users into using what they and they alone provide and make it all "uniform" based upon what the software developers desired.
I have said this ever since windows 1.0 that it is the biggest virus ever to be installed on a computer. Yet here I am still being forced into either paying a huge sum for an Apple system or take the plunge and use Windows. Linux is still looked at as the black sheep of the computer world and many software developers still refuse to make their games and product compatible with Linux.
I am still waiting on a cell phone company to come out with a Linux based cell phone and software developers creating more applications and games for them and Linux.
It is rather pathetic that a software company can sell my personal information yet when I try to sell it I get laughed at. I cannot sell my own personal information yet a software company can? How is that even right and how does that not violate my right to privacy? I should not have to give up my personal and private information just to visit a website let alone surf the internet.
There truly needs to be a computer hardware revolution as well as a software revolution where it is not just a handful of corporations that are dictating how things will be vs how it should be. Bring back computers that can be easily repaired and upgraded and software that that is reliable and not filled with tons of viruses, spyware, malware and other nefarious coding.
The copyright laws of the USA need a drastic overhaul as well. Why should the heirs of a dead writer have legal rights for 100 years after the authors death? A bit excessive in my eyes. If the author was really that great shouldn't the money and other possessions they obtained over their lifetime be enough? If a movie or song has not made back the money that was spent to produce it in 20 years hang it up and let the people pas it around and make their own versions of it without fear of having some corporation suing them into poverty. Oh wait Metallica has done that to many already as well as other "artists" and or music labels.
The Librem 5 comes with PureOS by default. Also the company Valve have helped Linux make major strides in the gaming side of things. The Steam Deck runs on a customized version of SteamOS that is based on Arch Linux and is a amazing piece of hardware IMO. It's getting better, I've used Linux since the late 90's(Mandrake anyone?) and it's been rough if you were a gamer, pretty much had to run a dual boot system in order to game. Thanks to Valve and Proton it's much easier for average users to get up and running in Linux these days. Steam of course works but so does the Epic Game Launcher Thanks to Lutris.I run openSUSE Tumbleweed as a daily driver and suggest it if you are into rolling releases that are stable.
it truly does make it harder for your typical user.... The ones of us who trust no platform will go thru hoops to block ads and unnecessary data scraping and in the end we will still be blocking ads while they drive the typical user farther away
I have ADHD (umedicated due to side-effects), and the web with ads looks like a complete nightmare whenever I have to look at it. Everything blinks and is animated, and when I try to focus and read, I have to click away a bunch of ads and newsletter nags first. Whenever some app on my android phone opens a website, all I see is ads and auto-playing videos, because of course they just use some chrome component. I think roughly 20% of the time I give up and decide whatever article I wanted to read isn't worth diving into a drug-induced las vegas fever dream. Whenever I watch youtube with ads, I quite often end up just giving up on the video and doing something else - something that nobody ever does and nobody has ever done in the history of youtube, according to some google employee.
I've already stopped going on reddit. I can cut other things out of my life if I need to.
Use brave or vivaldi, the rest of browsers are bullshit.
Please use a blocker. Literally good for your health.
I can second the notion for Vivaldi. It's very functional despite not allowing most ads. And there's other options which are much stricter.
i use firefox with ublock origin for everything, twitter, youtube. no ads ever
Summary:
- Manifest V3 is a new browser extension system in Chrome that makes ad blocking much more difficult. This benefits Google's ad business at the expense of users who
want to block ads.
- "Web Environment Integrity" is a new browser API that allows websites to detect details about the browser environment like what OS it's running on. This could be used to implement DRM and exclude certain browsers.
- These changes represent an erosion of the open web in favor of greater control and monetization by big companies like Google. They frame it as improving security and privacy.
- Alternative browsers like Firefox may not implement these proposals, but they have very little market share. Most people just want sites and apps to work and don't care about the implications.
- Many technical folks see this as the inevitable end game of the web being driven by ad revenue. Google has overwhelming power over web standards.
- The open web of old where users had more freedom is likely gone for good. These creeping restrictions will eventually affect most users even if they seem insignificant now.
- Fight it or not, Google is too powerful and most people too apathetic for these changes to be stopped. The only hope may be if Firefox garners significantly more users, which is unlikely.
LOL "Alternative browsers"
I agree, people are lazy and most don't know enough about the web and computing for this to even register on their radar.
Good bot
@@Holycurative9610 yout way of thinking is actually the main reason of why it is happening
People WILL ALWAYS seek conveniency, it is not "lazyness" its part of human nature
What people need to do is make things more acessible for users, make sure that the alternatives are as good or even better than chromium, litteraly the only reason i still use chromium is beacuse is more covenient than whatever else, but i was able to go from Chrome to Edge beacuse Edge was more conveinent/faster than Chrome
where's google hq? asking for a friend
Companies have been doing things that make the future of the internet and technology as a whole very scary looking. I am very happy that these videos exist to spread the knowledge so hopefully more people will care about these issues. Thanks for the great video.
I main Firefox with Anti-Fingerprinting enabled. There's a couple sites that will break though and that's when I use Brave. I'm not aware of any other chromium based browsers that have ad-blocking built in (and thus won't be affected by Manifest V3).
This is going to be interesting.
My company has adblockers on enterprise devices by default (and makes it not possible to turn them off).
The reasoning behind that is out IT security department because as they say "a lot of easy to fall for social engineering methods get blocked by that".
That is not the same thing as ad blockers on TH-cam that are used intentionally to avoid ads so they don't have to pay for the premium version. It is hard to argue with Google for doing that. As you say, that the area gets gray once you start interfering with other realms within the internet.
@@andyH_England It is pretty easy to argue with Google in effect deciding the future of the Internet at large, including all the free or directly paid for services, just to support their specific ad-based revenue model, which frankly never seemed too viable in the past due to it's shaky foundations and seems less and less capable of standing on it's own by the day (without some tech monopolies propping it up through both technological and even legal means).
Honestly, the whole history of the ad model reminds me of Ponzi schemes; some companies just got in so early and were so shrewd that they managed to reap the benefits from all the advertisers, which in turn were getting decent benefits only early on and the ones that joined in later got less and less out of it, since the Internet enabled people to be less and less advertisement-reliant (or should I say affected, since that doesn't carry a notion of being helpful?) in their decision-making.
And now Google is about ready to abandon their scheme to use the accumulated funds (and/or influence) to start a "real" business, which can be just about anything if they keep getting away with getting more and more control over user devices and software.
@@andyH_England Adblocks are just as often used to enhance user security. Ads are probably the largest source of malware there is.
@@andyH_England
They are going to do a lot more than that. Google will control what browser, OS, and devices are trusted. Google doesn't like people that run custom firmware and Degoogle their phones and now they will finally be able to stop people from doing that. DRM will be nothing in compassion to what Google wants to implement. Spoofing user agent also won't be possible anymore.
If Google somehow manages to DRM all of the internet, I will officially retire from it. The internet was built on the premise of "free access to information", something Google's "Web Environment Integrity API" will effectively destroy (or at the very least severely damage).
Reject Internet, return to pigeon
(not mocking you, just joking about the unfortunate position we find ourselves in)
Google controls a large amount of the web, as in things you use through a browser. The internet is way bigger than that, and all the old things are all still there, working just like they always have. Even within the web we still have open browsers and plenty of good websites which won't take part in this.
The funny part is, you won't be able to "retire from it".
There are placed where freedom and the old ideals survive. Half-hidden places.
Good luck returning to monke when you are required to use it to access services
"It is now illegal to put a lock on your bicycle. Your bike is now safer than ever! You are welcome!"
Just saying, friends, the walls are closing in. Louis, you are a great leader. People like you and listen to you. Whether you like it or not, to whom much is given (or acquired), much is expected. Please continue to use your voice to wake up the schlubs.
If they did do this - the website owner and google working together to ensure nobody else could access it unless they are using google - that sounds like some major anti-trust issue right there. They are purposfully preventing their competition from functioning so they have a monopoly on web browsing which would be apparent when the competition dies off and there is no way to create a new web browser. If they *don't* work together and allow other browsers to do this whole "verified user" thing then web browsers like brave and firefox would most certainly say you are trustworthy even though you "aren't".
Eventually, google will see that they can make money by selling DRM services to each major website. So those websites will use the google encryption key. Of course it is visible in your browser running the google decryption app that has the secret custom key and the external windows 11 UEFI plus TPM 2.0+ hardware. So you can save the webpage, a picture from it, or a youtube video, but it will be unviewable due to encryption. Right now, they cannot do it because a huge number of people don't have Windows 11 OR use TPM 2.0+ with Linux. But once those items are used by almost everyone, then google can make such a move without users being able to move to another platform to avoid it.
@@animejanai4657 And here is where a savvy user just records the outputs of his devices via proxy. Congratulations to Google, they will have re-invented the VCR recorder.
@@animejanai4657 If that ever becomes the case ... Let's just say I was in my twenties when the internet became a thing, and while it will no doubt require some adjustment to not have all the information on the internet a few button presses away, I do believe I can cut my usage of the internet down to an absolute minimum. I guess I would have to keep a computer around for things like paying bills and stuff, since all of that is done through the internet these days, but beyond that I have enough books, movies and tv series to last me a lifetime. Besides, there's an entire world out there, and I have seen only a tiny, tiny fraction of it. Don't need no web browser to take a walk, ride a bike or drive somewhere.
So basically now the browser identifies the user instead of cookies.
Which undermines the EU cookie policy.
On top of that, the browser makes sure the user can't do things the website operator doesn't like.
I'm sure scammers will be the first to abuse that. Like disabling right click and showing some fake menu.
Currently I can still tell the browser to override such things and give me essential information to stay safe.
I reckon you said the quiet part out loud there. Circumvent EU policy.
I am pretty certain that the EU policy is technology agnostic. As in, it is about tracking and data collection in general, not cookies in particular. So it can't get circumvented that easily. Whether the EU manages to enforce it in this case is a different matter entirely.
There is every chance they just moved by Google is instigated by collaboration with website holders. That Google has to attempt to maintain DRM security. They cannot be seen to be actively allowing abuse, especially as Apple built into their OS measures to counter DRM misuse.
@@MasterHigure Sadly that is wishful thinking.
Fun fact: 99% of Japanese websites do block right clicks, because copying website content to your clipboard is copyright infringement there.
Good one Louis. The limited quality of google searches with results filled with advertisements and censored content and with some of the most accurate links strangely absent has been annoying me more and more over the last few years. I used to save searches in the 90's and recently stumbled upon the folder containing them. Searching for the content today very seldom produces a correct hit but using the full search as saved will find the content. Obviously proof that I will only be shown what they wish me to see.
Perfect signal-to-noise ratio on the microphone, Louis. I'm a stickler for clean audio, love it! Of course, your content is King and this video is another home run. Thanks for keeping active and making people aware. Without videos like yours, I think people are numb to this shady stuff going on.
This is going to be a nightmare for accessibility. Currently only very few websites actually implement basic accessibility features.
There was a time in my life where I had to use an extension to add a dark mode to pages because I had an illness affecting my eyesight.
Without this I wouldn't have been able to work without permanent damage to my eyes.
sunglasses?
@@MarsofAritia Wearing sunglasses wouldn't have helped in my situation.
This also wouldn't fix any of the other accessibility issues like:
- people who can't see well / need high contrast
- people who have issues with motion
- colorblind people
All 3 of these can be fixed with just CSS and yet most websites simply don't bother to do this.
I would also like to add that implementing the functions of those plugins will increase website load times and resource usage which will significantly reduce website impressions.
Be that as it may, the accessibility for all nonsense has gotten WAY out of hand. We cannot possibly dumb down everything to a single common denominator for a fraction of the population.
@@macethorns1168 I wouldn't call the HTML accessibility features overkill. They're pretty simple to implement and are only visible if you enable them locally.
If there has ever been a company that needs to be AT&T'ed it's google.
what happened to AT&T?
and Apple, don't forget they're a trillion dollar entity
@@kleingib213 They were split up way back in 1982 into several smaller companies.
@@wallyhackenslackerWhich then were, for some reason, allowed to re-merge.
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 "for some reason" read: generous donations to the campaigns of politicians.
A country can have absolutely zero corruption and bribery if they call it all lobbying.
Google is slowly becoming Yahoo. Very curious to see how the web landscape is going to change in the coming years.
I'm glad that we still have people like you around. Peace and freedom for the Internet!
Google then: "Don't be evil"
Google now: "We saw you don't like ads. Too bad."
Whenever a company says they’re doing something that would normally be considered a good thing, you should always ask what the catch is.
And now if you ask what the catch is, you get called a conspiracy theorist. JUST for asking and demonstrating any form of suspicion! You're not allowed to have doubts, like trust is no longer earned, but rather given by default!?! Crazy. 😂
Funny that companies say they have issue with "fake content and interactions" when companies pay tens of millions for wikipedia pages
Im so sick of these criminals. We are very quickly approaching a Weimar Republic in the US and its not going to end well.
I'm a software engineer and I understand a lot of what they're trying to do here especially since I work in the domain of security. Now in a lot of cases with security you do have to force users to do things that they do not want to do, for example use really long passwords and change those passwords semi-regularly etc but this is nothing like that. This is essentially just complicating the process of browsing the internet for the sake of selling more ads. They claim it's making these websites more secure, meanwhile https was supposed to do that exact thing except it didn't, and all this effectively does is push chrome to further monopolize the browser market. And yes, they are right, there really is nothing you can do about this. Maybe there is a software workaround that somebody develops that allows browsers that don't implement this feature to spoof it but that's really the only hope that I can think of. The irony of course is that this concept comes from all of the web 3 stuff which was supposed to be all about personal privacy and peer-to-peer connections. Now apparently it's just all about serving advertisements. If the US government had stepped in and used their antitrust laws against Google, we wouldn't be here but then again that is the case with so many things these days.
"And yes, they are right, there really is nothing you can do about this."
Ok... You know what, man? Fuck that and fuck "spystath" or whatever the fuck his name is. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE WIN OR LOSE. YOU STILL FUCKING FIGHT. Fuck this blackpill defeatist shit. I'm sure years ago, Louis would have also said that Right to Repair would never be a thing, BUT WE ALL MADE IT HAPPEN BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SIT DOWN AND CRY ABOUT IT AND GIVE UP.
Get mad, you assholes. Or don't. Either way, I don't want to hear your bitching and moaning. You're dragging everybody else down. Fight with us or go be pathetic somewhere else.
It shows me here that there is a reply to your comment but I cannot view it. This happens with me many times on youtube. Is there a workaroud
@thenewmdzak yes...i am the guy who replied...unfortunately there's no workaround for you to see my comment, since i chose to speak FACTS...and we all know how that ends up being censored.
@@valentinzota8835 Idk about you but a lot of my comments that contain words that bots would possibly use like ones that would "offload users to another platform" get my comments deleted within 1-2 minutes of posting, and it's really irritating because I even try to avoid it and it still happens
https did make the internet safer though. Without it anyone could read your traffic with the website and steal passwords, banking info, ect..
To me this points to a larger systemic issue is that if Google needs to start putting chrome on a "subscription" based DRM its pretty clear Googles chief staff are spending WAY TF too much on investments they can't keep funding the bills for.
They are, one of those investments is TH-cam. How do you think they can afford to provide a service no one else in history has been able to provide.
@baronvonslambert It's generally been done by government-supported programs with repetitive and reliable cash injections, and the programs were still quite limited in capability. Something as massive and demanding as TH-cam is new and uniquely difficult... Not that there's any excuse for them doing such a poor job, even government could probably handle it better.
@@baronvonslambert Making and selling a single burger does not mean you are competing with mcdonalds. having a thousand channels on old school public broadcasting isn't really the same as providing infinite free video storage, and hosting more video content than a human can watch in their lifetime.
@@dirtpounder Yea, but if the government did it, it would be paid for by taxes and would probably be absurdly expensive. It wouldn't be paid for by ads.
Time to knock them down a peg...
This will happen, I am 100% sure of it. EU will roll out some legislature that will MAYBE hinder this in some inconsequential way.
I feel like the internet of the future is going to look like this:
There will be 3 main parts:
1. Corpo Web - big websites, monetized to hell, owned by a few big corporations (we are on track here).
2. Wild Web - basically stuff outside of corporation-controlled search algorithms. Most likely new search engines will emerge that only cover the wild web.
Basically this is the old net 2.0. Wild web will be continuously "colonized" by the Corpo Web, as some sites become more popular, and the owners want main stream appeal. Old sites go corpo, new sites arise. Its inconvenient for most users but that's the reality.
3. Dark Web will exist as it is now, unused by the majority.
Basically I see the future of internet as literally the colonization of America.
my opinion is that most corporate executives and politicians should face the wall with their whole families. they did this couple times in history and results were great: more social mobility, more social security, lower commodity prices across the board, new art movements.
Isn't it interesting that everyone was fine with ads in the 2000's when there were two nice and neat banner ads on websites you went to, but now they are scratching their head that nobody wants to see 80 ads on screen that actually slow the performance of their PC. They won't fix the advertisement spam problem, but will try to do everything they can to destroy adblock. Basically "It can't possibly be us, the ad companies, that are the problem!"
Not only that, but they make _us_ pay for these ads, because _we_ pay for the data transfers :q
Internet ads have never been tolerable. They've always been an invasive, frustrating nuisance at best and a security risk at worst. Back in the earliest days of the internet bubble, they sucked and caused all kinds of problems for peoples' computers. That's how the damage to their tolerance got done in the first place.
What is hilarious, is that at no point have advertisers ever considered just not being intrusive little shits. It would only be to their benefit, and yet they persist.
@@BlueArremer agreed. advertising is and always has been a grift. they don't actually work; people learn to ignore them so fast that "banner blindness" is a well-documented usability phenomenon: sites need to avoid accidentally making their nav look like a banner ad.
the web runs on ads because big companies either don't know or don't care it's a con; and no one wants to question the whole model too openly because there's nothing else, funding-wise, propping up the web right now.
the emperor has no clothes, and ad networks know it, so from the very beginning they've wanted to steal yours right off your back
I would feel a whole lot safer on the internet if Google wasn't being so goddamn evil all the time...
Google should had been sued with monopolizing on their market share and should had been break up for a long long time ago.
This feels like I’m being held at gunpoint to make a “protection” payment so I don’t get hurt.
It's time for people to run their own websites, begin migrating off of closed platforms, and eventually move their social circles and businesses onto software that respects your freedom and privacy. Thankfully, there's a whole wide internet out there that's not dependent on the few large services that most people seem to consider to be "the internet." It's up to us self-hosters to let the people around us know that there are other options available.
I've been trying to get people to see this for ages. Moving everything we do onto corporate was such an awful idea.
I gave GPT-4 the "How it works" section of their documentation, and asked him to formulate an opinion on it, even if he's an AI model. Here's what comes out, I'm not even joking or editing it:
"This feels like a significant expansion of the surveillance capitalism model. If implemented poorly, it could lead to a situation where everything we do online is tied to our real-world identity. This could be exploited by companies to build more accurate profiles of us for targeted advertising. In the wrong hands, it could also be used by oppressive regimes to track and control their citizens.
The potential privacy issues here are immense. We need to question if this is the future we want for the internet, where everything is tracked, attested, and verified, or if we should fight for an internet where privacy and anonymity are respected." - GPT-4
Wow
You biased it into saying "surveillance capitalism model"
This is a general issue not a "capitalistic" one, socialist countries like North Korea or China are also massive surveillance sites, and also UK government is wanting to end encryption as we know today.
@@diadetediotedio6918north korea is not socialist????
We are in the end times.
We need a digital bill of rights. That's the only way this is going to slow down or be stopped.
Won’t happen until corporations aren’t the main contributors to political campaigns and the providers of data for three letter agencies.
Quite frankly advertising should be banned across the board with 0 tolerance.
@@janisir4529advertising is psychological malware. Being forceably exposed to them should be a crime.
No, everyone needs to stop using the internet. Which they know everyone won't do.
@@itzhexen0 No one (as in 99% of people) is going to stop using the internet. It's too convenient, its too powerful, and its too accessible.
If their goal is to block ad blockers they are helping themselves not you. The internet should have been free and stayed that way.
I think Google should be introduced to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just for suggesting this as a possibility.
I remember when Google used to complain about Microsofts Inernet Explore. Googles even worse than Microsoft now.
pretty sure microsoft had to make a version of windows without internet explorer for some countries because of that
So much that Microsoft had surrended to Google and its brownser also uses google
@superninja252 thats not why they did that, every major browser uses the chromium engine for compatibility and because most of the work is done for them
Exactly. Chrome is IE6 all over again. We replaced one monopoly with another.
@@SuperShado101 This what i meant, Chrome dominance was so big that forced everyone that wanted get closer to use Chromium, edge got its actual numbers exactly after adopt chromium