4 ms·
It's depressing that the web has become such a race-to-the-bottom, but here we are. Maybe we need a WASM permission opt-in like what we have for notifications,
by _bxg1 7y ago
It's depressing that the web has become such a race-to-the-bottom, but here we are. Maybe we need a WASM permission opt-in like what we have for notifications, geolocation, etc.? It'll be hard to communicate what it means to regular users, but I don't see another solution.
- jkoudys 7y agoFull opt-in for wasm will become as impractical as disabling JS. What we'll need are better resource-level controls, so you could at least be prompted earlier if a site's using high CPU for prolonged periods. Could even help get devs to take site perf more seriously and stop draining the batteries of every visitor on an unplugged laptop or phone.
- _bxg1 7y ago> will become as impractical as disabling JS No, because that's not the same thing: 1) JS opt-in is an advanced setting, not a prompt dialog that appears when a page tries to run it and gets remembered on a site-by-site basis. 2) Until (unless) WASM gets full reign of web APIs, which is a long way off, it will continue to have very sparse legitimate use-cases. Are you trying to play a game, use Photoshop-the-web-app, or use an encrypted messaging service? Click "Yes". Otherwise, it's probably safe to say you don't want whatever-it-is running. It's rare that the average user would want to disable JS on a given site. It's much more likely that they'd want to disable WASM (just like it's much more likely that they'd want to disable geolocation, or push notifications).