3 ms·
I'll agree that modern mainstream browsers (and devices!) have an increasingly centralized security model that isn't at all conducive to an open web. But given
by Reelin 7y ago
I'll agree that modern mainstream browsers (and devices!) have an increasingly centralized security model that isn't at all conducive to an open web. But given the current state of the FOSS ecosystem, I'm not terribly concerned in the long term so long as the network layer remains open to all.
(Consider: QtWebEngine, PinePhone, SiFive, OpenTitan, IPFS, DAT, Solid, ...)
- Mirioron 7y agoI think the web is already a lost battle. It'll just take time (a lot of it) for the control to fully sink in. But I think that once this control becomes mainstream then there will be something else with more freedom. Some form of an alternate internet that will have barriers to entry. Something like tor. It'll probably be based on p2p.
- dublin 7y agoGab's rework of Mastodon is starting to look like this.
- cutler 7y agoHow is the network layer open when legit SMTP servers with proper SPF records are blacklisted by Google and Microsoft with no accountability. The internet is owned by these organisations. It's a fait accompli. It's only a matter of time before sites not hosted on cloud platforms become blacklisted due to the pitfalls of self-hosted certification. Jeeezus.
- Reelin 7y agoRefusal of large email providers to properly federate is certainly frustrating, but I was actually referring to the network layer in the OSI model. So long as the raw IP traffic isn't subject to broad and pervasive restrictions by the authorities, new software stacks can be freely invented and used on a worldwide basis (IPFS, for example). (Speaking of other software stacks, a few Gopher servers remain online today [1] and there's even a DECnet in operation! [2]) [1] http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw?gopher/0/v2/vstat http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw?gopher/0/v2/vstat [2] http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html