6 ms·

> There's no real debate because 2/3 players actively believe & push for a small web. It's a miserable rock & hard place situation, trying to figure out what to

by jpk 3y ago

> There's no real debate because 2/3 players actively believe & push for a small web. It's a miserable rock & hard place situation, trying to figure out what to do when there's only one ayer who believes in a web platform at all. Not to say I don't believe you, I'm just curious. In what way(s) does Google uniquely believe in the web as a platform where Apple/Mozilla don't? Can you provide some examples of this?

rektide 3y ago
Like 18 months ago Safari launched a "look at us we are so great, we don't support these long list of web apis; isn't chrome evil" and Moz joined in like two days latter repeating the exact same claims in an obviously coordinated negativity-campaign. Web USB, web Bluetooth, web midi, ambient light sensor, bunch of other sensors. I'm sorry I really want to find the links & show this off more. It was the most boldfaced & honest admission that basic useful interesting things were not welcome, profiteering off suspicion & hostility while telling users that the anti-feature was undecidedly the only acceptable way. One can also review moz's standards positions. It's a great effort & I applaud Moz for their transparency & don't want to hurt the effort. There's aot of good too. But there's such a long sordid history of Moz saying no absolutely not this is awful, then eventually having to circle back around & at least make some effort to not be a huge stick in the mud, to at least help figure out at some degree what would fit if this was a goal. And often deciding yeah, we will do it https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ They just don't seem to have any ability to differentiate between what a privileged/permission-ed site should be granted versus what the baseline security model should be. Any potential information leak anywhere seems like cause to terminate effort.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  I completely agree. The amount of FUD Mozilla spread about Web MIDI was truly distasteful. People say that Google is the enemy, and perhaps they are. But at least Google does not write off entire groups of users (like musicians) because of a swivel-eyed security paranoia. If I wanted a paternalistic entity telling me what I can and can’t do with my device, I’d use an iPad.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    > The amount of FUD Mozilla spread about Web MIDI was truly distasteful. As in: everything they said is true, and the moment they launched it they found it's used for fingerprinting (and Google doesn't even hide it behind a permission prompt)
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      Anything can be used for fingerprinting. Your GPU can be used for fingerprinting. Your fonts can be used for fingerprinting. MIDI is so far down the list of fingerprinting threats. If Mozilla are really serious about fingerprinting then they need to remove <canvas> right now and make every website render in Times New Roman. Fingerprinting cannot be solved by disabling browser features in a standard browser. It can be mitigated by using content blockers such that the fingerprinting code never runs, or by using a specialist browser like the Tor browser.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        > Anything can be used for fingerprinting. Yes and that's a major issue > If Mozilla are really serious about fingerprinting then they need to remove <canvas> right now Ad absurdum is not as great an argument as you think it is > Fingerprinting cannot be solved by disabling browser features in a standard browser. It also shouldn't be facilitated by just blindly turning them on without propert mitigation. And proper mitigation is complex > It can be mitigated by using content blockers So now you're shifting the responsibility onto the user. Even though it's been shown time and again that users can't really understand all the complexities of modern systems, their capabilities and the far-reaching results of what these systems can and do.
      - ta8903 3y ago
        Pretty sure canvas is blocked by setting resistFingerprinting to true.
    - rektide 3y ago
      But putting capabilities behind permission isn't what Apple or Moz considered. > Finally, if we find that features and web APIs increase fingerprintability and offer no safe way to protect our users, we will not implement them https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-privacy/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-priv... Strangling the web platform to keep users safe, forcing them onto much less secure much more invasive apps is not justified nor reasonable. Watching Mozilla adopt the same condescending paternalistic platform murdering "protect the children" absolutist authoritarianism with no possible consideration or affordances was a sad sad sad week. It's extremely reckless & hostile behavior, at deep deep deep injury to making so many great futures possible.
- illiarian 3y ago
  That's a lot of demagoguery mascarading as fact. What really happens is that Mozilla brings multiple well-argued objections (Safari, too) that span both technical and non-technical reasons, but Chrome just releases its half-baked non-standards and calls it a day.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Basically the ultimate goal is that Chrome turns into a kernel agnostic version of ChromeOS.
  - rektide 3y ago
    I see the demagoguery going the other way. Fear Uncertainty & Doubt are being used again and again to obstruct basic sensible user asks like being able to use Arduino Web Editor or work with their midi keyboard. Fear is the worst demagoguery of all. Put it behind a permission! Only turn it on if the user installs a PWA! The idea that Moz/Safari know better than to give users what they want, to deny the web basic possibilities: that is demagoguery. It was never based in sound perspective.
BoorishBears 3y ago
WebUSB: You can argue their resistance was justified in that specific instance, but it's a prototypical example of their general stance
- illiarian 3y ago
  So the prototypical example of their stance is: their resistance was justified.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    No, the prototypical example of their stance is: you can argue their resistance was justified. If you believe in a big web it was not justified, otherwise it was, as the original comment was asking for an example of.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      Their stance has nothing to do with a "belief in a big web", whatever "big web" is.
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
        You don't even understand the term but you're being so dismissive. Maybe read the full thread and then comment. By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should. And while one side of the conversation tends to see their approach as 100% correct, the history was people downloading random exes with 0 sandboxing to do 99% of what SPAs offer today, so there's merit to both trains of thought.
        illiarian 3y ago
        > You don't even understand the term "Big web" isn't a term. It's some vague unspecified idea that you may have. > By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". By what definition? > It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should. Of course this is not Firefox's stance.
waboremo 3y ago
Prior to app store creation, Apple and Google were the same regarding the web as a legitimate platform. After it was released, only really Google was pushing for it. Hence the creation of Progressive Web Apps, thanks to Alex Russell et al at Google.
- kelnos 3y ago
  PWAs failed in the marketplace and are essentially dead. Google pushed them because they were already on track for web dominance, and the shift toward native apps was a threat to that. These days Google still wants to control the web (and more or less does), but they also have a healthy app ecosystem, albeit only for Android. I'm sure it still bugs them to no end that they have zero control over the app experience on iOS, which they possibly could have had more input on had webapps ended up being the dominant way of doing things on mobile.
  - Rexogamer 3y ago
    "PWAs are essentially dead"?!? They haven't replaced native apps for sure but I think it's a pretty major stretch to call them done and dusted
    - di4na 3y ago
      From a engineer mind share pov they are. Users don't use them. Engineers do not build them. They are stillborn and i don't see a way out.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Engineers build them for big corps and ecommerce sites. The respective users, specially the corporate ones, have no alternative other than using them.
      - rektide 3y ago
        I think the expectation that tech wins & is everywhere in 5 years is murdering useful progress. It's not the climate we are in any more. Success is slow boiling, especially for web standards. The lack of empathy for how long change takes keeps letting doom & gloomers send good things to the graveyard.

by jpk 3y ago

rektide 3y ago

Like 18 months ago Safari launched a "look at us we are so great, we don't support these long list of web apis; isn't chrome evil" and Moz joined in like two days latter repeating the exact same claims in an obviously coordinated negativity-campaign. Web USB, web Bluetooth, web midi, ambient light sensor, bunch of other sensors. I'm sorry I really want to find the links & show this off more. It was the most boldfaced & honest admission that basic useful interesting things were not welcome, profiteering off suspicion & hostility while telling users that the anti-feature was undecidedly the only acceptable way. One can also review moz's standards positions. It's a great effort & I applaud Moz for their transparency & don't want to hurt the effort. There's aot of good too. But there's such a long sordid history of Moz saying no absolutely not this is awful, then eventually having to circle back around & at least make some effort to not be a huge stick in the mud, to at least help figure out at some degree what would fit if this was a goal. And often deciding yeah, we will do it https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ They just don't seem to have any ability to differentiate between what a privileged/permission-ed site should be granted versus what the baseline security model should be. Any potential information leak anywhere seems like cause to terminate effort.

zarzavat 3y ago
I completely agree. The amount of FUD Mozilla spread about Web MIDI was truly distasteful. People say that Google is the enemy, and perhaps they are. But at least Google does not write off entire groups of users (like musicians) because of a swivel-eyed security paranoia. If I wanted a paternalistic entity telling me what I can and can’t do with my device, I’d use an iPad.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > The amount of FUD Mozilla spread about Web MIDI was truly distasteful. As in: everything they said is true, and the moment they launched it they found it's used for fingerprinting (and Google doesn't even hide it behind a permission prompt)
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    Anything can be used for fingerprinting. Your GPU can be used for fingerprinting. Your fonts can be used for fingerprinting. MIDI is so far down the list of fingerprinting threats. If Mozilla are really serious about fingerprinting then they need to remove <canvas> right now and make every website render in Times New Roman. Fingerprinting cannot be solved by disabling browser features in a standard browser. It can be mitigated by using content blockers such that the fingerprinting code never runs, or by using a specialist browser like the Tor browser.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      > Anything can be used for fingerprinting. Yes and that's a major issue > If Mozilla are really serious about fingerprinting then they need to remove <canvas> right now Ad absurdum is not as great an argument as you think it is > Fingerprinting cannot be solved by disabling browser features in a standard browser. It also shouldn't be facilitated by just blindly turning them on without propert mitigation. And proper mitigation is complex > It can be mitigated by using content blockers So now you're shifting the responsibility onto the user. Even though it's been shown time and again that users can't really understand all the complexities of modern systems, their capabilities and the far-reaching results of what these systems can and do.
    - ta8903 3y ago
      Pretty sure canvas is blocked by setting resistFingerprinting to true.
  - rektide 3y ago
    But putting capabilities behind permission isn't what Apple or Moz considered. > Finally, if we find that features and web APIs increase fingerprintability and offer no safe way to protect our users, we will not implement them https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-privacy/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-priv... Strangling the web platform to keep users safe, forcing them onto much less secure much more invasive apps is not justified nor reasonable. Watching Mozilla adopt the same condescending paternalistic platform murdering "protect the children" absolutist authoritarianism with no possible consideration or affordances was a sad sad sad week. It's extremely reckless & hostile behavior, at deep deep deep injury to making so many great futures possible.
illiarian 3y ago
That's a lot of demagoguery mascarading as fact. What really happens is that Mozilla brings multiple well-argued objections (Safari, too) that span both technical and non-technical reasons, but Chrome just releases its half-baked non-standards and calls it a day.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Basically the ultimate goal is that Chrome turns into a kernel agnostic version of ChromeOS.
- rektide 3y ago
  I see the demagoguery going the other way. Fear Uncertainty & Doubt are being used again and again to obstruct basic sensible user asks like being able to use Arduino Web Editor or work with their midi keyboard. Fear is the worst demagoguery of all. Put it behind a permission! Only turn it on if the user installs a PWA! The idea that Moz/Safari know better than to give users what they want, to deny the web basic possibilities: that is demagoguery. It was never based in sound perspective.

BoorishBears 3y ago

WebUSB: You can argue their resistance was justified in that specific instance, but it's a prototypical example of their general stance

illiarian 3y ago
So the prototypical example of their stance is: their resistance was justified.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  No, the prototypical example of their stance is: you can argue their resistance was justified. If you believe in a big web it was not justified, otherwise it was, as the original comment was asking for an example of.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    Their stance has nothing to do with a "belief in a big web", whatever "big web" is.
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      You don't even understand the term but you're being so dismissive. Maybe read the full thread and then comment. By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should. And while one side of the conversation tends to see their approach as 100% correct, the history was people downloading random exes with 0 sandboxing to do 99% of what SPAs offer today, so there's merit to both trains of thought.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        > You don't even understand the term "Big web" isn't a term. It's some vague unspecified idea that you may have. > By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". By what definition? > It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should. Of course this is not Firefox's stance.

waboremo 3y ago

Prior to app store creation, Apple and Google were the same regarding the web as a legitimate platform. After it was released, only really Google was pushing for it. Hence the creation of Progressive Web Apps, thanks to Alex Russell et al at Google.

kelnos 3y ago
PWAs failed in the marketplace and are essentially dead. Google pushed them because they were already on track for web dominance, and the shift toward native apps was a threat to that. These days Google still wants to control the web (and more or less does), but they also have a healthy app ecosystem, albeit only for Android. I'm sure it still bugs them to no end that they have zero control over the app experience on iOS, which they possibly could have had more input on had webapps ended up being the dominant way of doing things on mobile.
- Rexogamer 3y ago
  "PWAs are essentially dead"?!? They haven't replaced native apps for sure but I think it's a pretty major stretch to call them done and dusted
  - di4na 3y ago
    From a engineer mind share pov they are. Users don't use them. Engineers do not build them. They are stillborn and i don't see a way out.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Engineers build them for big corps and ecommerce sites. The respective users, specially the corporate ones, have no alternative other than using them.
    - rektide 3y ago
      I think the expectation that tech wins & is everywhere in 5 years is murdering useful progress. It's not the climate we are in any more. Success is slow boiling, especially for web standards. The lack of empathy for how long change takes keeps letting doom & gloomers send good things to the graveyard.