this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
373 points (97.9% liked)

Firefox

20701 readers
5 users here now

/c/firefox

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


Rules

1. Adhere to the instance rules

2. Be kind to one another

3. Communicate in a civil manner


Reporting

If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

This is ridiculous... the in-memory structures are highly browser dependent, the browser is the one controlling how the DOM is represented in memory.. it would imply that opening the website AT ALL in a different version of the exact specific one they target or with a different set of specific features/settings would also be a violation, since the memory structure would likely be different too.

At that point, they might as well just ask for their website to not be visited at all.

[–] chillhelm@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

By that same logic I could claim that SHOWING me an ad by circumventing my ad blocker is interfering with the in memory execution of my ad blocker. Wtf.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 3 days ago

or mandate which program can be used to access the page.

like an app.