3 ms·

There are some interesting issues at play here. There is obviously some desire to have levels of standardized-form content that can be consumed in the way that

There are some interesting issues at play here. There is obviously some desire to have levels of standardized-form content that can be consumed in the way that the user desires. However, I disagree with a closed internet. Websites, like brick and mortar businesses, should be able to do what they want. They are responsible for the user's experience and should be able to craft it as they see fit. A browser (or extensions) should not be forcing an agenda for how consumers may or may not want to experience the internet. (Ads in partciular, are a unique part of the discussion). I appreciate websites like medium, reddit, facebook, pinterest, and others that standardized content formats for users to experience in a consitent way. The "death of RSS" is related here too. It's a complex issue. With RSS the user has significantly more control, but the problem is that you lose context and it can often become hard to browse large amounts of content.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Browser should let user choose which kind of experience they desire. Unfortunately, both websites AND web browsers are set on taking choices from users and forcing agenda on them.
- striking 11y ago
  Web browsers are becoming better at accommodating user choice, though. More and more browsers have extensions or content filtering tools, which are an extension of the user's power into their view of the web. And if there's a site that really forces its agenda on you, don't use it. If enough people agree that it's not useful enough to be worth the trouble, it'll stop existing eventually.
binarycrusader 11y ago
Sorry, but the idea that the client (browser) doesn't get to choose the experience is fundamentally incompatible with the architecture of the web. I don't see how you can call that a "closed" internet; quite the opposite. From the very beginning, almost every standard related to the web has made it very clear that ultimately clients get to choose what to display, what to retrieve, and how to display it. Yes, that freedom comes with a price, but it's a price worth paying. For users that are visually impaired, it's particularly important to be able to override the suggestions of the content being displayed. I don't see how there's an "agenda" involved in what any web browsers are doing today. The end user is the one choosing to use the client, choosing to use the content blocker, etc. If Apple or Google made the choice to start blocking content using the browser itself (on their own), you might have a point, but that hasn't happened (yet).
- andyfleming 11y ago
  Absolutely, both the user and the website/webmaster should be able to freely make their own decisions. My issue is with the idea of grouping web font blocking with ad blocking. A user should choose separately if they'd like to block: • Ads • Tracking scripts • Creative assets that may slow web performance (like web fonts) • Other non-essential, non-creative scripts that may slow web performance
  - binarycrusader 11y ago
    Agreed; I'd also argue that web fonts shouldn't be blocked by default unless retrieval of them presents a privacy or tracking concern (unique source url, etc.). In short, I don't disagree with what you've said at all. However, content providers must keep in mind that ultimately, they don't control how their content is presented or what part of it is displayed.
- a3n 11y ago
  > Yes, that freedom comes with a price, What price, and who pays it?
  - binarycrusader 11y ago
    The provider of the content must knowingly give up control over their content in exchange for the client's attention. They can make suggestions as to how the content is presented, and in some cases, requirements, but overall, the client is in control. Put another way, content may be king, but the client is the emperor.
ploxiln 11y ago
I also disagree with a closed internet. Users, like TV viewers skipping channels, recording to VHS, or leaving the TV on but mute for a house party, should be able to do what they want. A website should not be forcing an agenda for how consumers may or may not configure their browsers to request and present assets freely served by sites. I appreciate that websites want to look good. But browser rendering has always varied between devices and user preferences, and fonts in particular have always been a prominent configuration item. User displays have had varying DPIs and widths, users can set their preferred minimum font size and preferred window size, their preferred serif and sans-serif fonts, and zoom text size with or without other page elements. Some users have to use screen-reading software! This has always been in the interest of the user's readability with their particular setup, and the openness of the web to be used with whatever setup the user has. My only point is, your argument has nothing to do with "a closed internet". Or "it can often become hard to browse" (if you let users configure their browsers as they prefer). Right...
prebrov 11y ago
Brick and mortar is a closed model. Quite literally. Flash, ActiveX and Java applets are a "brick and mortar" of the web and thank god they're long dead as means of web design. Luckily, there is a "brick and mortar" of the modern times where publisher or retailer has full control over experience. It's native apps and users seem to love 'em.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Browser should let user choose which kind of experience they desire. Unfortunately, both websites AND web browsers are set on taking choices from users and forcing agenda on them.

striking 11y ago
Web browsers are becoming better at accommodating user choice, though. More and more browsers have extensions or content filtering tools, which are an extension of the user's power into their view of the web. And if there's a site that really forces its agenda on you, don't use it. If enough people agree that it's not useful enough to be worth the trouble, it'll stop existing eventually.

binarycrusader 11y ago

Sorry, but the idea that the client (browser) doesn't get to choose the experience is fundamentally incompatible with the architecture of the web. I don't see how you can call that a "closed" internet; quite the opposite. From the very beginning, almost every standard related to the web has made it very clear that ultimately clients get to choose what to display, what to retrieve, and how to display it. Yes, that freedom comes with a price, but it's a price worth paying. For users that are visually impaired, it's particularly important to be able to override the suggestions of the content being displayed. I don't see how there's an "agenda" involved in what any web browsers are doing today. The end user is the one choosing to use the client, choosing to use the content blocker, etc. If Apple or Google made the choice to start blocking content using the browser itself (on their own), you might have a point, but that hasn't happened (yet).

andyfleming 11y ago
Absolutely, both the user and the website/webmaster should be able to freely make their own decisions. My issue is with the idea of grouping web font blocking with ad blocking. A user should choose separately if they'd like to block: • Ads • Tracking scripts • Creative assets that may slow web performance (like web fonts) • Other non-essential, non-creative scripts that may slow web performance
- binarycrusader 11y ago
  Agreed; I'd also argue that web fonts shouldn't be blocked by default unless retrieval of them presents a privacy or tracking concern (unique source url, etc.). In short, I don't disagree with what you've said at all. However, content providers must keep in mind that ultimately, they don't control how their content is presented or what part of it is displayed.
a3n 11y ago
> Yes, that freedom comes with a price, What price, and who pays it?
- binarycrusader 11y ago
  The provider of the content must knowingly give up control over their content in exchange for the client's attention. They can make suggestions as to how the content is presented, and in some cases, requirements, but overall, the client is in control. Put another way, content may be king, but the client is the emperor.

ploxiln 11y ago

I also disagree with a closed internet. Users, like TV viewers skipping channels, recording to VHS, or leaving the TV on but mute for a house party, should be able to do what they want. A website should not be forcing an agenda for how consumers may or may not configure their browsers to request and present assets freely served by sites. I appreciate that websites want to look good. But browser rendering has always varied between devices and user preferences, and fonts in particular have always been a prominent configuration item. User displays have had varying DPIs and widths, users can set their preferred minimum font size and preferred window size, their preferred serif and sans-serif fonts, and zoom text size with or without other page elements. Some users have to use screen-reading software! This has always been in the interest of the user's readability with their particular setup, and the openness of the web to be used with whatever setup the user has. My only point is, your argument has nothing to do with "a closed internet". Or "it can often become hard to browse" (if you let users configure their browsers as they prefer). Right...

prebrov 11y ago

Brick and mortar is a closed model. Quite literally. Flash, ActiveX and Java applets are a "brick and mortar" of the web and thank god they're long dead as means of web design. Luckily, there is a "brick and mortar" of the modern times where publisher or retailer has full control over experience. It's native apps and users seem to love 'em.