3 ms·

I'm not saying one solution is bad over the other (ie: feature-rich browsers vs. "native" ones). I'm saying you made a bad-faith argument misrepresenting what

I'm not saying one solution is bad over the other (ie: feature-rich browsers vs. "native" ones). I'm saying you made a bad-faith argument misrepresenting what I was saying when I said "information/capability/expression want to be free" by conflating that phrase/statement with literal anti-user dark patterns that I find are more rooted in capitalistic practices...

zeusk 5y ago
I'm presenting the argument that information does want to be free but web as a whole is quite less free than its proponents would like us to believe. And I'm definitely saying web is bad over native for the consumer, maybe not for the developer who can worry less about knowing native development which is arguably not just more complex but has quite a lot more of legacy baggage as well. Web is quite largely controlled and censored by a handful of corporations - Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Twitter. Even the standards are largely dictated by Google (who ring! ring! also owns the web platform in name of Chrome).
- folkhack 5y ago
  Sure - you're stating common known facts. > If by free you mean mandatory accounts, activity trackers, 50% screen ads, background crypto miners, 8gb ram for reading the news and email, abysmal performance for what is essentially displaying text, media and information, literally WASM VMs and background webagents running in browser. Let me repeat... when you conflate my whole "information, capability, and expression all want to be free" with a ton of negative/gray-pattern stuff you're invalidating my original point in the above comments with what I see as a separate concern, ie: everything has to be built to milk money from people. Exploitative capitalism/money making dark patterns !== "information, capability, and expression all want to be free" --- I'm done.

3 ms·

I'm not saying one solution is bad over the other (ie: feature-rich browsers vs. "native" ones). I'm saying you made a bad-faith argument misrepresenting what

by folkhack 5y ago

zeusk 5y ago
I'm presenting the argument that information does want to be free but web as a whole is quite less free than its proponents would like us to believe. And I'm definitely saying web is bad over native for the consumer, maybe not for the developer who can worry less about knowing native development which is arguably not just more complex but has quite a lot more of legacy baggage as well. Web is quite largely controlled and censored by a handful of corporations - Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Twitter. Even the standards are largely dictated by Google (who ring! ring! also owns the web platform in name of Chrome).
- folkhack 5y ago
  Sure - you're stating common known facts. > If by free you mean mandatory accounts, activity trackers, 50% screen ads, background crypto miners, 8gb ram for reading the news and email, abysmal performance for what is essentially displaying text, media and information, literally WASM VMs and background webagents running in browser. Let me repeat... when you conflate my whole "information, capability, and expression all want to be free" with a ton of negative/gray-pattern stuff you're invalidating my original point in the above comments with what I see as a separate concern, ie: everything has to be built to milk money from people. Exploitative capitalism/money making dark patterns !== "information, capability, and expression all want to be free" --- I'm done.