Your consent does not matter how content is ultimately rendered on and by the user's machine, it's their machine, not yours.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, that isn't really true at all. There are plenty of other ways to serve video, and plenty of ways users' own machines can be used against them that are widely supported by the companies building those machines.
All this attitude does is promote more heavy-handed control. People complain about the rise of devices that aren't so user-programmable, and the standardisation of technologies like DRM, and the limited availability of some content on minority platforms like Linux, as being user-hostile and reducing freedom and openness on the web. And yet then we see discussions like this, full of people abusing that freedom to break the law and openly apologetic of a simple change that invited even those who wouldn't intentionally violate another's trust to do so unwittingly.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, that isn't really true at all. There are plenty of other ways to serve video, and plenty of ways users' own machines can be used against them that are widely supported by the companies building those machines.
All this attitude does is promote more heavy-handed control. People complain about the rise of devices that aren't so user-programmable, and the standardisation of technologies like DRM, and the limited availability of some content on minority platforms like Linux, as being user-hostile and reducing freedom and openness on the web. And yet then we see discussions like this, full of people abusing that freedom to break the law and openly apologetic of a simple change that invited even those who wouldn't intentionally violate another's trust to do so unwittingly.