4 ms·
By making web standards so complex only well-funded corporate efforts can maintain a browser, we've insured browsers represent corporate interests ahead of user
by NoRelToEmber 3y ago
By making web standards so complex only well-funded corporate efforts can maintain a browser, we've insured browsers represent corporate interests ahead of user interests.
We must cut this Gordian knot while still can. Some combination of public funding for browser development, and making web domain names (a public good) contingent on website content following web standards, that will slowly get made simpler [1]. Perhaps the corporate browsers should be forced to display a scary red warning for incompatible websites, even if the browser is able to render them (like Google does if it whimsically decides a website is phishing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36470078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36470078).
Just like we forbid radio jamming, polluting the web should be restricted, if we want to maintain some semblance of usability.
As for the API itself.. it is interesting how ads based on website content aren't even considered. If something as blunt and expensive as a poster next to a highway is viable, why do we let Google lie to us that only surveillance-based advertising can fund the web?
[1] Old content gets to follow the standards of when it was published.
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago> public funding for browser development I honestly can't think of a bigger waste of public money. It will cost billions and billions, we will get nothing useful, and then it will be abandoned. > making web domain names (a public good) contingent on website content following web standards I don't know what this means. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to register a website name unless the content is in strict compliance with someone's web standard? What happens if it's not? Do they take the domain away from me? Does the government take it?
- starttoaster 3y ago> I honestly can't think of a bigger waste of public money. Well there was the War on Drugs. But yeah I don't want a browser that was made by my government. What could possibly go wrong?
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago> I honestly can't think of a bigger waste of public money. Say that again when the address bar says "brought to you by Pepsi™", and every website you visit is sent to the manufacturer - like LG TVs sent filenames found on USBs back to LG. > It will cost billions and billions Mozilla spends $400+ million per year, and they've been at it for more than a decade. It already costs billions. > we will get nothing useful Even if the funding goes to Mozilla? Are Google's dollars magical? > Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to register a website name unless the content is in strict compliance with someone's web standard? I'm suggesting you keep the domain, but it doesn't resolve until the content is standard-compliant. Or, alternately, for-profit corporate and publicly-funded browsers are obligated to display a scary warning. > Do they take the domain away from me? Does the government take it? What do you find so hard to understand? Do you think the domain namespace shouldn't be managed like a public good? You're big on cynical criticism of my suggestions, but are my predictions wrong? How do you think the growing cost to develop a browser will be funded, if not by selling out? What do you think will happen? What has been happening so far?
- scarface_74 3y agoSo yes, I really trust a government controlled browser. What could possibly go wrong.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago> controlled > funded The two are not the same. Regardless, you could still use any browser you wish.
- scarface_74 3y agoYea because the government never tries to assert control over projects it helps fund. See PBS and NPR.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago> the government Which government, though? Open source projects know no borders, they can get funding from any and every government they want.