4 ms·

> 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 approa

> 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]

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]