You can read Google's full explainer here. In short, as far I understand it, it's basically an attempt to have a third party (most likely your device's manufacturer but I guess it could be anything that can manage identities, e. g. Twitter or Github) to verify that you are definitely human and accessing the site with your human hands and human eyes. Or something. They're kind of vague about what information they want attesters to supply.
First thing's first, I don't think it's fair to compare it to DRM. To me it's looks more like Secure Boot for the web. Remember Secure Boot? A thing that Microsoft tried to push onto OEMs to make their computers only compatible with licensed Windows OS?
So yeah, it's not DRM. It's much worse, precisely because, in theory, a website could (and probably would) just deny you service if you didn't pass the attestation. Also it's a goldmine for all kinds of tracking purposes.
The silver lining is that, because it's so terrible, I can't imagine it being very popular. Remember Google's own FLoC? That rankled everyone something fierce and, as a result, websites blocked it (or just didn't use it) and Google is trying to quietly rebrand it right now.
So, even if they do implement their WEI, it's pretty much useless if no website is using it. And how many websites would opt into this thing, knowing that there's a good possibility (about 23% with Safari and Firefox, probably more if we take Adblockers into account) that the API will just not work?
So I say, shout about it, keep your voices heard, but don't despair. If you're using Chrome or "normal" Chromium, try to seek alternatives.