zlacker

>>kjhugh+(OP)
I can't wait to see what JWZ has to say about this.

>>s1mon+ta
That was my first thought.

A few days ago JWZ had a great take on where Mozilla is today: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/

>>Nelson+ue
It's a very butthurt take about Mozilla agreeing to DRM in browsers. I prefer to watch Netflix or other streaming services in my browser, using its native features, not Flash, not Silverlight, not some native app not available for Linux.

>>Kwpols+gU
Surely you don't think DRM is necessary for streaming services to work...

My reading is that jwz thinks there was a possible future where DRM is dropped because it's as useless & impractical to enforce as cryptography export restrictions had been. Mozilla could have contributed to this future by not implementing DRM, but instead supported the outcome we got: DRM is ubiquitous, browsers that don't support it are disadvantaged significantly, and an anti-DRM streaming service (similar to GOG) no longer has any real advantage over DRM-enabled services.

It is possible that no DRM in Mozilla would have resulted in the same outcome we arrived at - Mozilla gave in, so we'll never know. But what does Mozilla even exist for if it's unwilling to stick to its principles?