this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
509 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

74193 readers
3916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
509
Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal (www.bleepingcomputer.com)
submitted 22 hours ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

So what happens if the ad blocker is built into the browser?

And what happens if a user modifies the Dom by hand using dev tools?

What about DNS blocks?

[โ€“] Kissaki@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

DNS is a listing of address resolution. Ignoring/Dropping records is not modifying existing entries/mappings. That's a different thing in my eyes.

If the ruling were to declare published content must not be modified, I think there's multiple levels to it too, and it may dictate to any degree between them.

  1. Interpretative tools (like a screen reader would be, or forced high contrast mode), which may be classified accessibility too
  2. CSS hacks that change display style but not what is shown (for example forcing a dark mode, reduced spacing, or bigger font sizes)
  3. CSS hacks or ad blockers that modify or hide content (block ads that would otherwise be rendered)

The biggest danger for a "copyright violation" would be the last point. Given that styling is part of the website though, "injection with intent to modify" may very well be part of it too, though.

It certainly would go directly against the open web with all of its advantages.

/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.