3 ms·

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

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.

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.