5 ms·

Reading people complaining how open web is dying is like listening to my uncle whining about his job as a butcher and miserable life in general. Yet he goes to

Reading people complaining how open web is dying is like listening to my uncle whining about his job as a butcher and miserable life in general. Yet he goes to supermarket every day to buy a cheap meat and salami to make a "good meal" and spends the rest of his day sitting in front of TV drinking beer and vodka. Every day. Web is still the same. There are walled gardens and there are gardens without walls. And that is a manifestation of openess. Everybody can build anything and hang around anywhere he pleases. What a beautiful and truly open world. This article is mostly ad to a browser. That's another manifestation how open web is. You. can. make. own. browsers.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pumpkingsanew 6y ago
>You. can. make. own. browsers With the growing marketshare of chromium-only based browsers, I'm concerned that this will not be the case for long. It doesen't matter how many browsers there are if they can't implement the monopoly's proprietary standards
- masa331 6y ago
  What proprietary standards do you mean? Web technologies aren't proprietary.
  - aboringusername 6y ago
    Great. Go build me a browser capable of streaming 4k video across all major streaming providers and accessing Windvine DRM (all levels). Oh, and make it work flawlessly across every site (including the top 10,000 alexa sites) without any issues at all. And try and wade through the mountains of chroumium exclusive bullshit (Google makes the standards). Go talk to Mozilla about how easy that is (they even have to spoof UA strings to make things work properly). Good luck.
    - krapp 6y ago
      "complex" isn't equivalent to proprietary. I doubt it's easy to write a Linux fork, either.
      - Ensorceled 6y ago
        All the examples they gave were proprietary or non-standard features , not just "complex".
        krapp 6y ago
        And none of the examples they gave are necessary for a functioning browser.
  - j-james 6y ago
    Do correct me if I'm wrong, but Google's Widevine and similar DRM technologies seem to be. I have to manually install a blob in order to stream video from sites like Netflix. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Plugins/Flash_to_HTML5/Video/DRM_and_authentication https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Plugins/Flash_to_HT...
    - masa331 6y ago
      You don't have to install anything if you don't want to. You are free to not watch tv shows you don't want to. Some content creators protect their's content more some less. What has that to do with open web?
      - zo1 6y ago
        Why are these things starting to sound the same, and somehow being framed as "freedom" and "choice"... If you don't like Facebook/Youtube/Reddit censorship(moderation), you are free not to use them (they are private platform). If you don't like installing proprietary blobs to watch Netflix, you are free not to use Netflix (they are a private company). If you don't like paying taxes / agree with government, you are free to not live here and move to Somalia (this is voluntary society and you choose to pay taxes!). I'm sure there are few other similar ones, just can't recall them at the moment.
      - j-james 6y ago
        Suppose that in order to render stylized web pages, you had to install a non-free binary blob. You're free to not render websites you don't want to, and scroll through what's akin to a minimal HTML tree. Some content creators protect how their websites look more, some less. Would you still consider CSS a part of the open web?
_blu 6y ago
People like you don't actually understand the problem. It's not about technology or freedom of choice. It's a social problem. Good luck interacting in your free and open forum without anyone to interact with. It's about social manipulation. We are gradually onboarded to these things, and your freedom of choice is suddenly not as easy. If you want to even communicate with your family and friends, you need to join in.
- masa331 6y ago
  The thing you described seems like your own personal social problem to me. YOU want to communicate with someone who uses different tools which he is happy with. What would you want them to do? Use some different tool you approve? That doesn't sound very open to me.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Openness means they'd be able to communicate with someone who uses different tools, because on an open web, tools would be interoperable. I should be able to use Messenger, Whatsapp and Slack from a common app of my choosing - or write one if it doesn't exist. But I can't, because I'm prevented by Terms of Service and technological means these services use to enforce a closed environment.
- RGamma 6y ago
  It's scary to see how self-oblivious und frenzied the average American (plus their "society", what's left of it anyway) has become to not see how shitty things have turned out (and I don't mean the technological side)... Personally I turned my back on most of the web some time ago. It's not the right reaction but it does keep my sanity. It's high time for a new beginning, but that's complicated :(
2342352365246 6y ago
>You. can. make. own. browsers You can't make your own browser anymore. The complexity of HTTP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and soon QUIC (in place of TCP) has grown to the point where only a handful of large, well-capitalized institutions (and really only Google, if you consider WebKit's ubiquity) can develop and maintain a secure, efficient, modern web browser. Most alternative browsers, even forks of Firefox/Mozilla, have either been abandoned, or fallen so far behind that they have no future. This is almost certainly deliberate on Google's part. They want to control the browser, because outside of apps, it's through the browser that they deliver ads, and over 80% of their revenue comes from ads, and the more they control the browser, the harder they can make it to block ads. They don't even have to prevent it fully; just make it so difficult that only a small minority of technically-inclined, and sufficiently motivated users will do it.
- 2342352365246 6y ago
  I should add: I have trouble these days even just using Firefox. Apparently, since its marketshare has dwindled to 3%, many sites either just don't support it, or their fraud detection algorithms view it as suspicious. E.g.: a bank I use has a website that supports Edge, but not FF; I tried to buy something through Amazon with FF a few months ago, and the account immediately got locked for "suspicious activity." Maybe I would have had similar troubles using Chrome on the iPhone, but I doubt it. Imagine how useless an alternative browser more obscure than FF would be; you wouldn't be able to buy or sell anything, do any banking, and even basic, passive web browsing would result in never-ending CAPTCHAs on many sites.
- masa331 6y ago
  Yes you can. It is complex, will take plenty of time and effort but you can. And that is what open means. Now if you complain about complexity that's another thing. Yes it is complex a lot. But it did evolve this way for some reason. Our communities, desires, tools, problems, they are all complex and that's why web is also complex. But if you don't like the complexity you can use only subset of the technologies. You can read only plain HTML blogs on web and don't use any eshops for example. Or not use technology or even web at all.
- jefftk 6y ago
bzb6 6y ago
> You. can. make. own. browsers. Even Microsoft failed and had to fork chrome
m_eiman 6y ago
"You. can. make. own. browsers." * * Assuming you're an enormous corporation with endless pockets, because apparently even Microsoft couldn't keep up with "the modern web".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pumpkingsanew 6y ago

>You. can. make. own. browsers With the growing marketshare of chromium-only based browsers, I'm concerned that this will not be the case for long. It doesen't matter how many browsers there are if they can't implement the monopoly's proprietary standards

masa331 6y ago
What proprietary standards do you mean? Web technologies aren't proprietary.
- aboringusername 6y ago
  Great. Go build me a browser capable of streaming 4k video across all major streaming providers and accessing Windvine DRM (all levels). Oh, and make it work flawlessly across every site (including the top 10,000 alexa sites) without any issues at all. And try and wade through the mountains of chroumium exclusive bullshit (Google makes the standards). Go talk to Mozilla about how easy that is (they even have to spoof UA strings to make things work properly). Good luck.
  - krapp 6y ago
    "complex" isn't equivalent to proprietary. I doubt it's easy to write a Linux fork, either.
    - Ensorceled 6y ago
      All the examples they gave were proprietary or non-standard features , not just "complex".
      - krapp 6y ago
        And none of the examples they gave are necessary for a functioning browser.
- j-james 6y ago
  Do correct me if I'm wrong, but Google's Widevine and similar DRM technologies seem to be. I have to manually install a blob in order to stream video from sites like Netflix. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Plugins/Flash_to_HTML5/Video/DRM_and_authentication https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Plugins/Flash_to_HT...
  - masa331 6y ago
    You don't have to install anything if you don't want to. You are free to not watch tv shows you don't want to. Some content creators protect their's content more some less. What has that to do with open web?
    - zo1 6y ago
      Why are these things starting to sound the same, and somehow being framed as "freedom" and "choice"... If you don't like Facebook/Youtube/Reddit censorship(moderation), you are free not to use them (they are private platform). If you don't like installing proprietary blobs to watch Netflix, you are free not to use Netflix (they are a private company). If you don't like paying taxes / agree with government, you are free to not live here and move to Somalia (this is voluntary society and you choose to pay taxes!). I'm sure there are few other similar ones, just can't recall them at the moment.
    - j-james 6y ago
      Suppose that in order to render stylized web pages, you had to install a non-free binary blob. You're free to not render websites you don't want to, and scroll through what's akin to a minimal HTML tree. Some content creators protect how their websites look more, some less. Would you still consider CSS a part of the open web?

_blu 6y ago

People like you don't actually understand the problem. It's not about technology or freedom of choice. It's a social problem. Good luck interacting in your free and open forum without anyone to interact with. It's about social manipulation. We are gradually onboarded to these things, and your freedom of choice is suddenly not as easy. If you want to even communicate with your family and friends, you need to join in.

masa331 6y ago
The thing you described seems like your own personal social problem to me. YOU want to communicate with someone who uses different tools which he is happy with. What would you want them to do? Use some different tool you approve? That doesn't sound very open to me.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Openness means they'd be able to communicate with someone who uses different tools, because on an open web, tools would be interoperable. I should be able to use Messenger, Whatsapp and Slack from a common app of my choosing - or write one if it doesn't exist. But I can't, because I'm prevented by Terms of Service and technological means these services use to enforce a closed environment.
RGamma 6y ago
It's scary to see how self-oblivious und frenzied the average American (plus their "society", what's left of it anyway) has become to not see how shitty things have turned out (and I don't mean the technological side)... Personally I turned my back on most of the web some time ago. It's not the right reaction but it does keep my sanity. It's high time for a new beginning, but that's complicated :(

2342352365246 6y ago

>You. can. make. own. browsers You can't make your own browser anymore. The complexity of HTTP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and soon QUIC (in place of TCP) has grown to the point where only a handful of large, well-capitalized institutions (and really only Google, if you consider WebKit's ubiquity) can develop and maintain a secure, efficient, modern web browser. Most alternative browsers, even forks of Firefox/Mozilla, have either been abandoned, or fallen so far behind that they have no future. This is almost certainly deliberate on Google's part. They want to control the browser, because outside of apps, it's through the browser that they deliver ads, and over 80% of their revenue comes from ads, and the more they control the browser, the harder they can make it to block ads. They don't even have to prevent it fully; just make it so difficult that only a small minority of technically-inclined, and sufficiently motivated users will do it.

2342352365246 6y ago
I should add: I have trouble these days even just using Firefox. Apparently, since its marketshare has dwindled to 3%, many sites either just don't support it, or their fraud detection algorithms view it as suspicious. E.g.: a bank I use has a website that supports Edge, but not FF; I tried to buy something through Amazon with FF a few months ago, and the account immediately got locked for "suspicious activity." Maybe I would have had similar troubles using Chrome on the iPhone, but I doubt it. Imagine how useless an alternative browser more obscure than FF would be; you wouldn't be able to buy or sell anything, do any banking, and even basic, passive web browsing would result in never-ending CAPTCHAs on many sites.
masa331 6y ago
Yes you can. It is complex, will take plenty of time and effort but you can. And that is what open means. Now if you complain about complexity that's another thing. Yes it is complex a lot. But it did evolve this way for some reason. Our communities, desires, tools, problems, they are all complex and that's why web is also complex. But if you don't like the complexity you can use only subset of the technologies. You can read only plain HTML blogs on web and don't use any eshops for example. Or not use technology or even web at all.
jefftk 6y ago

bzb6 6y ago

> You. can. make. own. browsers. Even Microsoft failed and had to fork chrome

m_eiman 6y ago

"You. can. make. own. browsers." * * Assuming you're an enormous corporation with endless pockets, because apparently even Microsoft couldn't keep up with "the modern web".