201
submitted 1 year ago by cm0002@piefed.world to c/firefox@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tal@lemmy.today 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

“There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage,” Nazer says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need "to improve accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy."

Stylus and Greasemonkey would presumably violate that, for example.

[-] De_Narm@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Not even that, it would technically outlaw developer tools. Your browser allows you to freely edit the DOM at any point.

[-] sexy_peach@feddit.org 13 points 1 year ago

Swatted for not viewing e-mail with remote content enabled

[-] 30p87@feddit.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not unrealistic. You can easily get swatted for having mildly left takes and publishing them in the wrong form/media, or calling a politician "1 pecker".

Andry Grote ist 1 Pimmel.

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
201 points (99.5% liked)

Firefox

7510 readers
2 users here now

A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS