It does allow blackbox libraries. So does compiling to JavaScript though. Really it just means that the black box binaries are (even) faster than the white box scripts.
WebAssembly is not another Flash. It might allow someone to create something that resembles Flash, but WebAssembly itself is not. You might as well criticise C because people can write DRM with it.
I think the population that consumes YouTube in general is much larger than the population that consumes paid content with DRM, and there would be a much larger pushback if webpages like YouTube started to be distributed in compiled format.
WebAssembly changes none of those things.
It’s not a tiny difference, and skepticism is not necessarily unfounded.
Ruffle [0] is written in rust, compiles to webassembly, and already can play a reasonably sized subset of flash correctly at their intended speed.
Right. The actual reason you see all the big companies loving WebAssembly is that now you can fully have cross-platform black-box DRM binaries running on every browser. But of course what could possibly go wrong?
It is another Adobe® Flash® that is controlled by the big tech companies rather than just one.