There's similarities, but it's a little more empty, and it's a little too reposty from other sites still. reddit then felt a bit more like the place, this isn't that yet.

Present. My oldest account just had it's 13th cake day.

Okay, thanks.

To make it harder, even if not impossible, for the average user to ad block them.

Are you asking because you're not sure of the answer, or because you are, and you know that web integrity will require a pre-compiled closed source binary to browse the web?

I still don't see why my open source browser can't just lie when it's sending a description of itself to the third party. The only way I could see it working is if that description needs to be encrypted by a key that's compiled in to a closed source browser, and then websites only accept requests from a few closed source browsers.

Is that what you're saying? That unless I have one of a couple accepted clients which are proprietary and closed source, websites just won't work?

A private key to do what?

I only have the most cursory understanding of what Widevine is, but a quick Google reveals github projects claiming to spoof it.

Where I fail to understand is this. Whatever authentication the open source browser I modify needs to do, I can let it keep doing, because at some point it has to provide my browser C++ code with a clear text DOM before it renders it to an image to be displayed by my window manager. I can write that browser to simply remove DOM elements it deems to be ads - just like ublock does - before it renders it graphically.

The only way around this would be to turn browsers in to a completely dumb terminal that accepts an octet stream of pixel data so it can display bitmaps, which is completely unfeasible (every webserver would become a graphics card for each of it's users), and even if it did that, a simple neural net would identify the ads and remove them.

What am I missing?

Why can't my modded client just give it that signature?

On code I write on hardware I run locally, how is it ever possible to not be able to remove an element from the UI?

I don't really understand how that's possible. The browser gets a token from the third party, and passes that token to the server to "prove" it's running the DRM. The server then passes code back to the browser. At that point, why can't the browser just cut out the DOM elements which are ads?

I don't understand how code I write on hardware I run locally can ever have it's hands tied like this.

I don't understand. Isn't someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff, put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

Can you still get to it via twitter.com?

MySQL: you have an error near here.

Me: What's the error?

MySQL: It's near here.

Me: You're not going to tell me what the error is? Okay, near where? Here?

MySQL: warmer... warmer...