EME is now a W3C recommendation

The long and short of it, if you want to convince non-zealots that EME are a bad thing, its not enough to talk in the abstract, you need to demonstrate whatever harm they actually cause.

The open web would have benefited from a major vendor not playing along by being able to point at a significant amount of traffic that would be lost. Obviously Netflix et al would still have 100% of their traffic from EME enabled browsers, but it would protect the long tail of the web from the demands of advertising.

"But Firefox would quickly become a fringe browser if they don't cater to the washed masses."

Maybe. Probably. Once upon a time Mozilla had a core group of users that would stick by it and would have maintained a percentage that might just have been enough to counter divisive practices like EME, but Mozilla have sold those users down the river a long time ago in accordance with their new motto, "not out hill to die on; never our hill to die on," leaving them just another vendor trying to play technical catch-up with Chrome.

So yeah, the open web died because of pressure by big content who wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with the Web not so long ago, but now consider it their domain and privilege with all other consideration void and null. We won't even have Paris, because it will be locked away.

The power of media companies to impose DRM stems from the observable fact that somewhat less than 0.01% of people would choose to not watch DRM'ed content rather than suffer DRM. (I don't know a single person in this category, not even my DRM-hating nerd friends.) Compared to that, any "legitimacy" bestowed by the W3C is straw in the wind.

For example, every XML site that supported comments always had at least one bug enabling you to slip invalid Unicode into a comment, so that a conforming XML browser would replace the entire page with a parse error for all users. It turns out this is not what developers or users actually want.

It is a familiar phenomenon: those with power in a certain domain holding "consultation" processes, where input may be solicited from each of the affected parties, but where the intention is to discard or belittle any input that does not validate the already-decided outcome of the process. When such processes are "rubber-stamping" exercises, the value of each participant - particularly that of dissenters - to those driving the process is not in their contribution but in the apparent legitimacy their involvement brings.

This is why people boycott rigged elections, after all.