Back in July, Google's work on a Web Integrity API emerged and many equated it to DRM. The company announced today it's not proceeding...
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.
K, I'm still not using Google search engine anymore. And once I find a replacement for any other Google services and devices I have, it's out with those as well.
I'd like to believe that enough of us actually stopped using chrome and switched to Firefox the day they made that announcement that swayed them... But in reality I'm sure it was just the bad press and they're going to try to find a different more sneaky way to do the same shit.
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
the web has been getting so shitty lately i've actually gotten into drawing and reading and vinyl and film, which i highly recommend as a backup plan; just the idea of this feels like the atomic bomb for the internet
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.
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.
I am not asking for much. Just break up Google and throw both the big shareholders as well as the executives in jail for the rest of their lifes. If you go as far and decide to take all their money and spend it on social services, healthcare and education for the general public, I wouldn't be mad.
Unpopular opinion here: I kind of hoped they'd go through with it, as that would completely kill Chrome and Chromium and would lead to a repeat of IE vs Firefox, except Chrome would be the new IE. The fact that they backtracked means that they too saw that people would be massively flocking to Firefox.
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