this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
2602 points (99.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53843 readers
578 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
not quite , this is way more serious than refusing to give extensions access to websites content. ( for those who don't know that's what manifest-v3 essentially do )
I think i understand it.
You would need to be using a browser that is "verified" to view content.
I'm saying that most things trend toward homeostasis. If it's "successful" it will hurt them. But it won't be successful. All verification is falsifiable.
Agreed. It's like people forgot about Microsoft and IE. They also had drm options in the browser. Anyone remember Silverlight?
And how did that work out for them?
I do wish Firefox would be more customizable about what sites an extension can access though.