3 ms·

They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web. That does enable the possibility to use other browsers than big tech browsers. It is relate

They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web. That does enable the possibility to use other browsers than big tech browsers. It is related to the "core messaging interoperability". And making core messaging functionality interoperable is fairly not enough because we already know what they will do to lock users on their software: they will accelerate their planned obsolescence, will increase the complexity/size of their protocol (or open source software) in order to kill alternatives which cannot have full-time bazillions of devs. Ofc, they will hide their malicious behavior behind words like "they have to evolve/adapt" or other security fallacies (I would not be surprise if corpos(=state?) paid hackers start to abuse the system in order to give corpos "good excuses" to trash interop), etc, well you get the picture. Simple, but good enough to the do reasonably the job, stable in time is the way to regulate them. Those guys are smart, their evil will be too.

amelius 4y ago
> They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web Noscript has nothing to do with this.
bloppe 4y ago
They're smart, but the language of the regulation gives enforcers enough leeway to fine them for trying to pull bullshit like this. Using "bazillions of devs" to try to circumvent the spirit of the law would be an enormous waste of time and money. Hopefully they realize that before even trying.
- sylware 4y ago
  That said, they are actually doing it for the web, and it is working. I am more pessimistic than you about this since I am being hit hard by the web issue.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web. I agree that interoperability on the web should be protected at least as much as on mobile, since the web as a platform has the potential to be more open than the tightly integrated mobile ecosystems. Unfortunately, what that would look like in practice is harder to say, as I don't think governments could mandate "Semantic Web" versions of all websites, even though that would give true client choice and allow the building of complementary services. My main disappointment with the legislation is that "core messaging interoperability" doesn't also require interoperability between social networks, since a Facebook user should be able to send a DM to a Twitter user, for example, and ActivityPub solves the more general issue of social network federation.

amelius 4y ago

> They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web Noscript has nothing to do with this.

bloppe 4y ago

They're smart, but the language of the regulation gives enforcers enough leeway to fine them for trying to pull bullshit like this. Using "bazillions of devs" to try to circumvent the spirit of the law would be an enormous waste of time and money. Hopefully they realize that before even trying.

sylware 4y ago
That said, they are actually doing it for the web, and it is working. I am more pessimistic than you about this since I am being hit hard by the web issue.

dane-pgp 4y ago

> They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web. I agree that interoperability on the web should be protected at least as much as on mobile, since the web as a platform has the potential to be more open than the tightly integrated mobile ecosystems. Unfortunately, what that would look like in practice is harder to say, as I don't think governments could mandate "Semantic Web" versions of all websites, even though that would give true client choice and allow the building of complementary services. My main disappointment with the legislation is that "core messaging interoperability" doesn't also require interoperability between social networks, since a Facebook user should be able to send a DM to a Twitter user, for example, and ActivityPub solves the more general issue of social network federation.