• mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The DRM will be so interwoven into the core engine that they won’t be able to remove it. chromium is a sinking ship

      • GustavoM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amen. I’m just waiting for them to screw everything up and I’ll follow along.

        t. Currently using Brave

          • Black616Angel@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It really isn’t though. I also started using Firefox recently and I miss tab groups on mobile as well as on my PC. Yes, there is the simple tab groups add-on, but it just doesn’t compare.
            Brave is also easier to set up ad-blocking, because it comes with ad-block enabled and script-blocking two clicks away.

            Don’t get me wrong, I will continue to use FF, but Brave has some features, FF does not have (yet).

        • PlantJam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No need to wait, Firefox is already a strong competitor (in terms of features, not market share). Adblock on Firefox mobile makes mobile sites so much easier to use.

          • moitoi@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know how people navigate the internet without adblock on mobile. Each website is a nightmare with the majority of the screen being ads.

    • aksdb@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It might be interwoven, but at the end there are three interfaces:

      1. the headers or tags that trigger it to be enabled for a website
      2. the API towards the attester
      3. the headers that are added to subsequent call to include the verdict of the attester

      It should be enough to disable/sabotage nr. 1. If not, you can sabotage nr. 2 so it simply doesn’t attest shit. And finally you can suppress adding the verdict to the responses.

      If the actual “fingerprinting” or whatever else is in there is still intact doesn’t matter if you just don’t trigger it.

      Of course webservers would simply deny serving brave then. But it’s still a good move. The more browsers get “denied”, the easier it will be to make a case against websites for some kind of discrimination.