5 ms·

Web Filtering, Web Automation and especially the UX behind it. I don't understand why the Web Browser ecosystem is stuck with Extensions, and why Web Browsers,

Web Filtering, Web Automation and especially the UX behind it. I don't understand why the Web Browser ecosystem is stuck with Extensions, and why Web Browsers, the most used programs on the planet, are still unautomated for 99% of humans. This just doesn't make sense in any economical or rational view. Web Filtering and Ad Blocking are things that are stuck UX wise, because currently there are basically two different concepts. Either you have some scammy anti-virus firewall premium service that does things you don't understand, or you have an Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock Origin and uMatrix where you can block per domain basis (which most people don't even understand in terms of terminology). Why is the Web not allowlisted? Say you browse a website, and you disable everything by default. Then you want to allow a payment provider because you want to buy something, and you click on "Allow PayPal". Wouldn't a collective list of services and SDKs and their required assets in the form of a named "web service" list make more sense than the adblocking approach? I think that this can be improved a _lot_ in its UX. Coming back to Automation of the Semantics of the Web: I think once a Web Browser gets smart enough to understand the semantics of a website, and the implications of user interactions ( e.g. "make a payment" or "subscribe to channel") - it can be recorded, trained, and automated. And I think this is the reason why I started to build a Browser from scratch, even when it is an almost impossible task to do. I believe that Web Automation is a necessary step to get to a superintelligence level. And such a Browser would push our collective efficiency far beyond what we can imagine right now.

dartharva 6y ago
> Wouldn't a collective list of services and SDKs and their required assets in the form of a named "web service" list make more sense than the adblocking approach? Standardizing things at such scale would limit the implementation of new web technologies as sites have to wait for the overloaded browsers to catch up with their new technologies each time they invent something new. All in all, it would overcomplicate things and slow down development. Plus, web browsers are an intimate part of our online lives and act as the main gateway for almost all our activity on the internet. As such it is better to have barebones web browsers like we are used to having in my opinion and extend them as users see fit (similar to adhering to the Unix philosophy), instead of having rigidly-built software that take away control what technologies to implement from the user.
- cookiengineer 6y ago
  > Standardizing things at such scale would limit the implementation of new web technologies as sites have to wait for the overloaded browsers to catch up with their new technologies each time they invent something new. Isn't this the state we're already in, given that most websites still use jquery, and the websites that don't use babelified codes for decade old web browsers? My argument was meant from the user's perspective of an Adblocker. A user doesn't know what an included script from xyz.paypal.com/what/ever.js does. But a user recognizes PayPal as a service, and knows that they want to pay for something. > web browsers are an intimate part of our lives (...) This kind of contradicts your own argument, because Web Browsers as they are built right now don't give a damn about anything and will happily execute any code from any malicious website. The only project that somewhat pushes this state (or default behaviour) forward is WebKit, and Firefox sometimes keeps up with how third party trackers are handled. I don't know how you perceive this as taking control away from the user. I wanted to offer a button that says "Enable PayPal" and a concept that disables everything by default. A user that doesn't understand the concept of uMatrix is a user without control, that will just enable everything anyways once websites stop working due to lack of understanding.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> I don't understand why the Web Browser ecosystem is stuck with Extensions, and why Web Browsers, the most used programs on the planet, are still unautomated for 99% of humans. It's simple, really: because it's strongly against the interest of people with money. And I don't mean some shady megacorps like Google here. A sane web goes against most of the commerce, big and small alike. Ad blockers are what they are because there's no money in making them, and a lot of money in making them go away. That's why they're not included in browsers by default (all two relevant browsers being directly or indirectly ad-funded). A good chunk of the Internet - including all the little content creators - makes money from ads, and would like to see the blockers go away. > once a Web Browser gets smart enough to understand the semantics of a website, and the implications of user interactions ( e.g. "make a payment" or "subscribe to channel") - it can be recorded, trained, and automated Again, entirely against the interests of everyone with money. Pretty much every business on-line wants to control the interaction between their sites and you, and most of them want to use that control to screw you over. Expose you to extra advertising, upsell you some of their other wares, make sure you choose the option that's profitable for you and not them, etc. Whether you (generic you) realize it or not, the relationship between you and a commercial site is almost always antagonistic. Any automation and browser smarts that makes your experience better is one that cuts into site owners profits. In short, the problem isn't technology. The problem is business incentives. The web is a wild west, built for people with means to exploit those without.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dartharva 6y ago

> Wouldn't a collective list of services and SDKs and their required assets in the form of a named "web service" list make more sense than the adblocking approach? Standardizing things at such scale would limit the implementation of new web technologies as sites have to wait for the overloaded browsers to catch up with their new technologies each time they invent something new. All in all, it would overcomplicate things and slow down development. Plus, web browsers are an intimate part of our online lives and act as the main gateway for almost all our activity on the internet. As such it is better to have barebones web browsers like we are used to having in my opinion and extend them as users see fit (similar to adhering to the Unix philosophy), instead of having rigidly-built software that take away control what technologies to implement from the user.

cookiengineer 6y ago
> Standardizing things at such scale would limit the implementation of new web technologies as sites have to wait for the overloaded browsers to catch up with their new technologies each time they invent something new. Isn't this the state we're already in, given that most websites still use jquery, and the websites that don't use babelified codes for decade old web browsers? My argument was meant from the user's perspective of an Adblocker. A user doesn't know what an included script from xyz.paypal.com/what/ever.js does. But a user recognizes PayPal as a service, and knows that they want to pay for something. > web browsers are an intimate part of our lives (...) This kind of contradicts your own argument, because Web Browsers as they are built right now don't give a damn about anything and will happily execute any code from any malicious website. The only project that somewhat pushes this state (or default behaviour) forward is WebKit, and Firefox sometimes keeps up with how third party trackers are handled. I don't know how you perceive this as taking control away from the user. I wanted to offer a button that says "Enable PayPal" and a concept that disables everything by default. A user that doesn't understand the concept of uMatrix is a user without control, that will just enable everything anyways once websites stop working due to lack of understanding.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> I don't understand why the Web Browser ecosystem is stuck with Extensions, and why Web Browsers, the most used programs on the planet, are still unautomated for 99% of humans. It's simple, really: because it's strongly against the interest of people with money. And I don't mean some shady megacorps like Google here. A sane web goes against most of the commerce, big and small alike. Ad blockers are what they are because there's no money in making them, and a lot of money in making them go away. That's why they're not included in browsers by default (all two relevant browsers being directly or indirectly ad-funded). A good chunk of the Internet - including all the little content creators - makes money from ads, and would like to see the blockers go away. > once a Web Browser gets smart enough to understand the semantics of a website, and the implications of user interactions ( e.g. "make a payment" or "subscribe to channel") - it can be recorded, trained, and automated Again, entirely against the interests of everyone with money. Pretty much every business on-line wants to control the interaction between their sites and you, and most of them want to use that control to screw you over. Expose you to extra advertising, upsell you some of their other wares, make sure you choose the option that's profitable for you and not them, etc. Whether you (generic you) realize it or not, the relationship between you and a commercial site is almost always antagonistic. Any automation and browser smarts that makes your experience better is one that cuts into site owners profits. In short, the problem isn't technology. The problem is business incentives. The web is a wild west, built for people with means to exploit those without.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]