Chrome not proceeding with Web Integrity API deemed by many to be DRM

The Chrome team says they’re not going to pursue Web Integrity but…

it is piloting a new Android WebView Media Integrity API that’s “narrowly scoped, and only targets WebViews embedded in apps.”

They say its because the team “heard your feedback.” I’m sure that’s true, and I can wildly speculate that all the current anti-trust attention was a factor too.

TheTimeKnife,
@TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world avatar

I absolutely do not trust Chrome or the google team. It does not make me feel any better the only barrier to them trying to ruin a internet a bit is some backlash.

Cannacheques,

One set of standards for the internet systems, and multiple measurements and methods I say, hardly makes sense to split the whole web to pieces over advertising money, especially when access to knowledge, strength, capability to invent and discover of all sorts is now at such an all time high.

We’ve yet to build anything on the moon or create livable spaces in outer space

meldroc,

Ah, let me guess, now Google’s gonna get everyone and their sister to move all their content to apps…

kumatomic,

They already have. I can barely go to a mobile page that isn’t broken or doesn’t have a pop up I must dismiss telling me it’s better in the app when it most certainly is not. Some things I use have let their desktop web pages go into disrepair and when I contact them with my issues logging in they just tell me to use the app and that their site has been down for months. Gotta force that tracking and those arbitration clauses somehow.

isVeryLoud,

Tell them that you don’t own a smartphone and that you can’t use their product.

Might not solve the issue in the short run, but eventually they’ll hopefully realize that a desktop site is important as well.

Isakk86,

“We’ve decided not to pursue Web Integrity API.”

“Oh great! But what’s that giant thing under the tarp behind you”

“Oh don’t worry…”

0x2d,

we already have play integrity and now we have this webview attestation now?

schnurrito,

I have not followed this stuff very closely. Here’s a question. This article says:

People took issue with how the Web Integrity API would bring DRM to the open web.

Has there not been DRM on the web for many years by now for videos?

Bishma,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

This would bring DRM to everything on the internet. If you wanted to get grandma’s apple brown betty recipe even the text would be unavailable unless your browser and the page agree that it should happen. And the browser wouldn’t give the OK unless the page is advertiser friendly, and the page won’t give the greenlight if you’ve blocked any ads recently.

SeriousBug,

This is worse. Let’s go with an example: on an Android phone, you visit a website. The website asks for an integrity check, the browser works with Google Play Services to complete the check.

What if you have a de-Googled phone without Play Services, or if you made modifications to restrict Google’s tracking? Then Google can refuse to verify you. What if you installed an ad blocker in your browser? Google can refuse to verify you.

If you fail verification, the website could ask you to complete a captcha, or just refuse to show you anything.

TwoGems,
@TwoGems@lemmy.world avatar

This should never be left up to Chrome. We need antitrust laws.

nothingness,

I’m sure that’s true,

How can you be sure? Are you in their team and are aware of all the talks?

Somecall_metim,

There’s this thing called sarcasm. I’m not surprised you didn’t spot it; it’s an advanced skill.

nothingness,

then you haven’t understood “this thing” in my comment

disconnectikacio,

Disgusting piece of craps! All should continue to open eyes, against google. They wont stop!

Spread the word to install firefox based browser, use different frontends to block youtube ads in browser, Invidious and use piped youtube apps on android to block youtbe ads: Newpipe

Suavevillain,
@Suavevillain@lemmy.world avatar

That usually means they will have something worse at a later time.

TwilightVulpine,

The most likely option is that they will rebrand and we will have to push back against a “completely new, completely different functionality” in a few months.

PersnickityPenguin,

They have to figure out how to apply DRM to YouTube first.

SirQuackTheDuck,

I mean, Widevine is present in all browsers and actively used by Netflix for example. YouTube also uses this when you’re watching movies on YouTube Movies.

Not running DRM on the majority of YouTube content is also likely due to the added cost of running such encryption (the encryption is usually on a per-customer level, not one key fits all) and the added bandwidth and computer cycles required. Not to mention that this might be a legal struggle with the content creators.

restingboredface,

Yeah, it makes me worried about what they have planned to replace it.

poopkins,

The Media Integrity API is something that streaming video services want and applies only to Android apps that are built on web technologies. This has nothing to do with conventional web experiences or even the Chrome browser on Android: it’s effectively a solution for when media is served on webpages that are embedded inside an Android app.

Typically an Android app will use native libraries like ExoPlayer to request and serve DRM content, for instance a video from a paid streaming service to ensure that the viewer is permitted to watch it. Chrome is built on top of open video codecs and doesn’t inherently support DRM in this manner (as far as I’m aware), so if an app developer wants to use web technologies by leveraging a WebView, they are restricted to which codecs and DRM is available.

It’s my understanding that this new library offers a solution to such developers. As a reminder, this doesn’t apply to the web at large.

From my perspective, this is no different than DRM offerings that are supported natively in all operating systems, including Android, iOS, Mac and Windows.

possiblylinux127,

That’s why DRM is bad period. It takes away your power and gives it to a single authority

poopkins,

The difficulty as I’ve understood it, is that this isn’t sustainable for streaming services: if a bad actor knows how to serve the media request, there are no guarantees if they are actually licenced to watch it. I’m not especially knowledgeable in this field though, so perhaps there are other solutions that would mitigate concerns around the use of DRM.

possiblylinux127,

I personally think that the end does justify the means. Sure Disney, Netflix and others might be concerned about piracy but at the end of the day they don’t have much to say in terms of morals.

Corgana,
@Corgana@startrek.website avatar

Good summary. I used to think that apps were soooo much better than web apps, but I’ve come to realize that frequently the web UI is made intentionally janky to nudge users onto the apps where ads can’t be blocked.

BigT54,

Ads can actually be blocked in apps if you use a VPN that has the ability. Though not all apps will function with a VPN enabled

Corgana,
@Corgana@startrek.website avatar

Or a PiHole! Still not as good as uBlock in a browser but an improvement.

CosmicCleric,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

Ads can actually be blocked in apps if you use a VPN that has the ability.

While technically correct, not really feasible on mobile devices, especially when they have not been rooted and they are controlled by the telco you get your service from.

BigT54,

Wdym not feasible? I’m currently doing it on a non rooted android device using Mullvad VPN. Not sure what the telco has to do with ads but you can remove all of that bloatware using adb anyways.

CosmicCleric,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

Wdym not feasible?

Speaking generally, but if you lack the knowledge how to root a phone, if you’re just using the phone as it’s given to you by the phone company, they tend to control the things on there to a certain extent, and settings have a way of being switched back to the default values, etc.

Not that it’s literally impossible to do.

P.S. and to be honest I’m also over using the work rooted, I really mean to say one where the user has changed portions of the phone away from the default software that the phone company has on it.

Cannacheques,

This is essentially an attempt to further embed Google’s existing dominance. What we need is a serious competitor in the Android space, that can involve a webstore, an api, etc that can provide an alternative force catering to both OEM and consumers alike that stands to challenge Google’s dominance to the OHA alliance.

baltakatei,

Google will just buy such a competitor like Facebook did with Instagram.

bobo,

Yeah, but they were testing the waters with this one. The hydra’s going to grow another head eventually. It’ll be interesting to see how/if the media integrity API gets leveraged in the Android Chrome browser. They’re eventually going to attack this problem from a slightly different angle.

CosmicCleric,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

As a reminder, this doesn’t apply to the web at large.

Every movement has a start.

artic,

Dont care all drm should be outlawed

Blackmist,

The Advert People are easily startled, but they’ll soon be back, and in greater numbers.

aluminium,

Ha, suck on that!

stagen,
@stagen@feddit.dk avatar

The “don’t be evil” motto was replaced with “don’t be evil, but greedy and posessive is okay”

CileTheSane,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

And then later edited to

“don’t be evil, but greedy and posessive is okay”

FrankFrankson,

Soon after it changes to it’s final form:

“don’t be evil, but greed y and posessive is okay”

The_Helmet_Stays_On,

Then it will eventually come to its end and become:

“don’t be evil, but gre e dy and posessive is okay”

registrert,
@registrert@lemmy.sambands.net avatar

Some people have moved to /e/ already.

possiblylinux127,

It has always been…

axlc,

I just figured they skipped straight to:

“don’t be evil ,but greedy and posessive is okay”

BaardFigur,

“don’t be evil, but greedy and posessive is okay”

FTFY

gnuplusmatt,

Floc returned as something else, we will see this come back I am certain

redcalcium,

Bet they’ll just rename it later, like what they did with FLoC to Ad Topics.

elbarto777,

What’s funny is how these companies refer to ads as if it’s something we should be excited about.

“Good news! We’re implementing a new ad delivery feature for your enjoyment! You can now choose what ads to watch, yay!”

Jako301,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • BirdyBoogleBop,

    I would rather have the ads based on the content I am viewing rather than me.

    Shameless,

    I don’t need highly specific targeted ads telling my exhausted monkey brain what I currently need in my life. I’m making plenty of poor financial choices with the slightly targeted ads I do see occasionally right now.

    Amir,
    @Amir@lemmy.ml avatar

    It obviously isn’t a necessity looking at how many Lemmy servers are running on nothing but good will

    96VXb9ktTjFnRi,

    more targeted ads means more spying. That’s bad news in theory and in practice.

    Phen,

    There’s also a difference between me being a good target for an ad they are going to run and that being a useful ad for me to see. Google optimizes stuff for the advertisers, not for the users.

    If it actually tried to find ads for the users instead of finding users for the ads, maybe it would be okay. But that will never happen.

    lud,

    Some people actually like personalized ads!

    I have no idea why, it feels counter productive to want them to influence you to buy shit you don’t need.

    I like my ads to be as unrelated to me as possible, because I wouldn’t spend money on those things anyways.

    I have to admit that it can be funny with personalized ads when you google something extremely expensive and get ads for it for months after. Many years ago I searched for a high speed camera (like the one the Slow Mo Guys use) and while I very much want one, I could never afford to spend 0,5 to 1,5 million Euro (or whatever the price was) on one camera. So it was amusing to see all the ads urging me (a then teenager) to buy one.

    roboticide,

    In my experience, ad personalization is still so bad it has no impact, like in your last example. But at least now I’m not seeing random shit. I don’t really bother to try and counter targeted ads, and the vast majority of the ads I get are for products I actually already bought or never intended to buy but was researching for other purposes. Yes, Google knows I spent a lot of time researching drills, but guess what, Home Depot isn’t telling them I bought a drill, so I’ll get drill ads for a month. And yeah, I looked at a bunch of luxury sail yachts, private jets, and cars, but it’s not because I suddenly make more money. It’s because I’m interested in design and engineering. But Google just stupidly assumes I became a billionaire overnight and gives me 100’ yacht ads.

    I’d honestly be more worried about a random ad getting lucky and pre-emptively catching my interest. Targeted ads are so reactive it’s not a problem.

    FlyingPiisami,

    The most interesting and absurd ad I ever got on youtube was for a device for inspecting the coils on a huge grid transformer.

    reksas,

    this has me thinking, i might actually be interested in looking at ads if they had only completely random things, like literally anything that exists. At least i wouldnt be annoyed with them so much.

    chellomere,

    I looked up the backgammon start position, since then all Google wants to sell me is backgammon boards.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines