[rashkov]

This was so light on technical information that I am more puzzled than before I read the article. Haven't the browsers standardized on a few DRM schemes already? Does that have anything to do with what the W3C is doing now, and if not, just what is the W3C up to that is offensive to the EFF? Are they talking about protecting data streams, such as movies? Why would you compare that to what Netflix was doing with physical DVDs?

[drdaeman]

I think it's all about EME: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/

[throwaway160303]

Yes they have, yes it does, they think the world would be better if everyone Just Said No to DRM and the W3C isn't going along with their grand plan, yes, and because they (correctly) think it'll sound convincing to the target audience (mostly other Just Say No-ers, probably consisting mostly of the EFF and Mozilla. And that's it.)

I'm really getting tired of what seems to be the EFF's somewhat-newfound mission (it's been getting steadily worse over the last couple years) to push the limits of "shrill squawking about nonsense" to new heights.

[rashkov]

I'm generally a fan of the EFF's work but I completely agree when you call this "shrill squawking". The lack of any coherent argument or details in this statement reminds me of some the "rally the mob" emails that I receive from Fight For The Future. It's a shame that they take their audience for granted and feel that it's enough to rile people up to send angry emails using nothing more than an appeal to their own authority. That may work for a while but at the expense of their credibility.

[studentrob]

Agreed though I'd put it in slightly less harsh tones. Rhetoric from EFF and FFTF is light on the informative side, and heavy on the FUD side.

[optforfon]

At the title is pure click-bait...