1413
submitted 1 year ago by sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

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

[-] rainh@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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

[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Well with custom roms they already are for many apps.

[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

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

Per wikipedia:

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

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1413 points (99.0% liked)

Firefox

17303 readers
66 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS