7 ms·

Fighting for the open web [image]

187 points by pabs3 3y ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
If fingerprinting is so effective and reliable, as we have been told on HN countless times, then why is Google proposing WEI. Honest question.
- pmlnr 3y ago
  Because it's not just the ability of tracking in question but the ability to display the ads as well.
- Santosh83 3y ago
  WEI is for controlling what software runs in the stack, from the bootloader upwards. Traditional secure boot gives assurances up to the kernel. WEI will extend it up to the browser. So more layers of the stack are secured from unauthorized modifications.
  - realusername 3y ago
    You should not use the word "secure", it only checks the integrity, it doesn't guarantee any security, same as on Android. Same for "authorized" which is a bit misleading because only manufacturers can authorize modifications, not users.
    - userbinator 3y ago
      The same goes for the word "trusted" as it's often used, e.g. "trusted computing" and the like. Who's doing the trusting? Not the users.
      - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        Trusted is a warm and fuzzy sounding word. But always remember that in terms of security, trust is at best a necessary evil. Trust makes you vulnerable to abuse of that trust. "Trusted" is not equal to "trustworthy".
- agilob 3y ago
  It's been my worry that at some point Google will force DRM on YouTube and I won't be able to backup interesting channels, but I didn't expect Google will put DRM on majority of websites. Last week Google granted itself rights to scrape all the internet for its AI, but doesn't us to do it. https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-privacy-policy-train-web-scraping https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-pr...
  - realusername 3y ago
    The genius marketing move behind Google nowadays is convincing people that indexing and scraping are two different things and they are the only entity allowed to do it.
- gmerc 3y ago
  because it’s not about fingerprinting or even identity, it’s about forcing the browser to not run code like adblock or code that scrapes their treasured data they amassed for AI use Google knows well enough that their solution does not attest humans - it attests machines which may or may not be used by humans. The web is already full of vietnamese click farms of physical android devices with real accounts, their narrative is about misdirection
  - realusername 3y ago
    Exactly, anybody who think this will solve any issue with bots needs to take a hard look on Android and how absolutely nothing changed with the play integrity api, the click farms are just as big as before. It's effective against thirdparty roms and competitors though.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Because it means that browsers can try to implement features that resist fingerprinting without hurting legitimate use cases of the web.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pkulak 3y ago
  My guess is that they want to stop bots from creating Google accounts once and for all. I don’t see them putting DRM on YouTube. That would break every app everywhere, and many of them can never be updated. Most could never be updated to this scheme.
  - peteforde 3y ago
    I remember when it was common to release third-party Twitter clients and bots were considered first-class citizens. Large companies are far less uptight about breaking ecosystems that you might think. I say this as a former VB6 developer.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Chrome wants to get rid of fingerprinting, and has for many years (see the entire Privacy Sandbox effort). But they cannot do it unilaterally, they need to identify the legit use cases and design + implement new privacy-preserving technologies to meet those use cases. (Yes, yes, we all know Apple and Firefox have been able to such things unilaterally. But as we've seen by the different reception from Apple having shipped remote integrity attestations in prod for a year to Chrome just proposing it, the rules aren't the same for all browsers.) Fraud prevention/anti-abuse is both an extensive use case for fingerprinting and the most obviously legitimate one. If we demand that browsers close off all the fingerprinting loopholes (it's a great goal!) but don't allow a replacement, the web will be mostly dead as a platform in 10 years. All economic activity will move to native apps on walled garden platforms that are able to provide effective anti-fraud mechanisms.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  WEI is about installing some (closed source) spyware on your computer so that Google knows you're using the "right kind" of client.
- npteljes 3y ago
  Because it's about control, not safety. Or it's about safety, but not for the user, but for whomever publishes content, or software.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nuker 3y ago
Why the fox? Safari (WebKit) was always first to implement major privacy features, not Firefox.
- jdsalaro 3y ago
  > Why the fox? Perhaps because Firefox, and the Mozilla foundation as a whole, are one of the few projects not trying to milk you for data nor money? Might be a good enough reason in my book.
  - PathfinderBot 3y ago
    > The detachment from reality I see in some HN readers is really mind boggling sometimes. I try to balance it out by flagging unconstructive comments, leaving it alone, and participating in more constructive threads instead. For reference, take the classic "don't feed the trolls" advice, in combination with Lobster's flag types: > For comments, these are: "Off-topic" for drifting into meta or topics that aren't related to the story; "Me-too" when a comment doesn't add new information, typically a single sentence of appreciation, agreement, or humor; "Troll" for derailing conversations into classic arguments, well-intentioned or not; "Unkind" when uncharitable, insulting, or dismissive; and "Spam" for promoting commercial services.
    - jdsalaro 3y ago
      I agree, thanks for raising this.
- Keirmot 3y ago
  Because Apple doesn’t support Windows nor Android
  - pkulak 3y ago
    Nor Linux.
- lrem 3y ago
  Apple was also the first to ship attestations in Safari.
nathias 3y ago
The fight was already lost, we must now fight the consequences of our defeat. Every year google squeezes its hold and introduces new chrome 'features' to serve its purposes. Platform capitalism seems to have come to a new stage, consolidation of power, closing off borders. Maybe now people will come to realize why protocols matter, and you can't replace them with APIs.
- CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
  FWIW I was going to write practically the same thing.
  - nathias 3y ago
    there was lots of us, but far far too few to make a difference
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Unfortunately protocols seem to have no chance as long as people just want convenience and immediate gratification. For companies there's no profit in protocols, we love talking about motes and with data that means owning users' data and clutching onto like Gollum with his precious ring.
malikNF 3y ago
I have converted most of my family and friends to ff in the past month. I take my time and help them understand why the change is needed. The biggest reason they were afraid to move was because they had stored years worth passwords and other setting on their browsers. Take some time and help a few people out. If everyone convert a few people and explain why they need to and help them with their issues. We can do this. Mr don't be evil has become too evil at this point.
- PathfinderBot 3y ago
  This is great advice! Instead of expecting non-techies to handle the migration to more ethical platforms by themselves or leaving them in the control of large corporations, us techies have an obligation to help them with such tasks.
  - zelphirkalt 3y ago
    How do I help my non-techy friends to not be in control of technical decisions large organizations (I don't really have those) or to make the right decisions, while there are 10 "techy people" recommending Chrome, for every 1 privacy aware techy person like me, if not more, and these non-techy friends are not able to judge who has their best interest at heart or who knows their stuff best? How do they know who is the most knowledgeable? There is always a huge temptation to choose convenience over privacy or security. If then some technical person recommends that avenue ... And then comes along some accidental change, that breaks YouTube or GMail or whatever on Firefox ...
    - PathfinderBot 3y ago
      Thanks for asking. I haven't finished thinking it through, and I am young without much experience, but I think a possible avenue would be a return to the expectation that there is an "IT guy in the family" to help set up phones and computers for others to use. Essentially, there needs to be a culture change. There is some prior literature to this, for example https://runyourown.social/ https://runyourown.social/. In this case, the non-techies don't need to know or care much about free software, convenience vs privacy/security, who is most knowledgeable, how to not be in the control of large corporations, etc., since it'll be the techie's job to help them set up their OSes and teach them how to use the functionality that they want to use. Additionally, I am assuming that techies are principled enough and knowledgeable enough to hold their own against corporations' anti-user decisions and advertising. As a practical example, if a techie is culturally expected to buy and set up a laptop for a non tech-savvy member of the family, then the techie can simply install Tor Browser instead of Chrome and set it up to make sure it's working. Any additional instructions, if needed, can be taught via post-it notes. Humans are adaptable, and if the internet speed is acceptable via Tor, then I don't think most people would care or complain. Of course, I cannot ignore the fact that to some people this seems like a power-grab by techies, or that people's expectations of technology has changed from "oh I'll just ask the IT family member" to "I expect to be able to use <device> out of the box". But I think this is an idea worth exploring, given how flexible it is.
voz_ 3y ago
As long as FF takes Google money, it’s tarnished.
- anonymous_sorry 3y ago
  So what alternative do you suggest?
- bimblesticks 3y ago
  We don’t live in a perfect world, and the priority should be preventing Google from having complete control over the internet. If you have any better ideas for how to do that, please let us know.
- toyg 3y ago
  Is a national park "tarnished", if funded with tax money coming from a highly-polluting industry...? As long as FF takes Google money, it's less money going to fund anti-web activities.
  - throw_m239339 3y ago
    > Is a national park "tarnished", if funded with tax money coming from a highly-polluting industry...? The difference is the majority of national parks funding might not come from highly-pollting industry. Mozilla corp would not survive for long without Google's bribes.
    - toyg 3y ago
      Maybe, maybe they'd step up their fundraising instead.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  What do you propose as the alternative? And do you have any reason to believe FF is making meaningful decisions based on coercion from Google? Mozilla has to keep paying the bills. I expect most people would be upset if they starting charging for the browser or selling ads, and I frequently see complaints when they focus on any products other than FF and MDN. If private donations won't cut it and sponsorships tarnish their standing, what's left?
tkubacki 3y ago
Serous question: I don't get why so much steam goes towards Chrome which can be basically open source (Chromium) and the same folks accept Microsoft Windows perfectly well (which is closed source and has much bigger impact on our privacy IMHO) Edit: same with MacOs?
- audunw 3y ago
  I think you’re confusing two things. How open standards are developed/pushed vs open source. In the context of web integrity API, what good does it do that chromium can be open source? Whether a browser is potentially fully open source has no impact on the bad google is doing by pushing evil we. standards through the mainline chrome browser. Personally I’ve switched to just using Safari on MacOS simply because giving Apple some power against Google in adoption of web standards is beneficial in my view. Apple is one of the few companies not incentivised by maximising ad revenues which is really toxic to the web. Not that I like what Apple is doing in general. On Windows I’ve used Firefox only for years. (Why not on MacOS? My laptop (only macOS machine I have) is a bit old, safari runs smoother, and I like the iOS integration futures)
- userbinator 3y ago
  Whether the source is open doesn't matter, and in fact I think that's part of a distraction; it's orthogonal to the issue of whether the software respects the user's freedom or is a way for a third-party to control the user (turning it into a "used"). Both closed and open source user-hostile software exists, and the same goes for software that isn't user-hostile. Also, I suspect many of those who are anti-WEI are also either not Windows users, or Windows users who are grudgingly doing so and have also killed off the spyware and customised the environment to their own liking, which can still be done even without requiring source code.
- bimblesticks 3y ago
  Can’t speak for everyone else but I just think that getting people to change their OS is much harder than getting people to change their web browser, so it makes sense to start there. Chromium is in that awkward position where it is technically an open-source community-driven project but in practice operates like a closed-source one. Google has complete control over decisions and can make changes that serve their profits (see: JPEGXL debacle). Of course, you can make the same critique of Firefox, but at the very least they are a nonprofit foundation and don’t have enough market share to abuse their power.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jruz 3y ago
I think this is actually great, users will finally have a reason to switch from Chrome to an open browser. Ofc they will fight back an allow only their browser on their services, which again will be a great push to use open and privacy conscious alternatives. So let them go as closed as they want
Sparkyte 3y ago
I feel like the concept of Open Web runs hard against the institutions that fund the development and growth of the internet. I'm not saying I don't support the Open Web concept. I do but it seems more like a pipe dream than something that will just happen. If a country sees the internet as a threat it will just create its own network and only allow its population to see what it deems alright. I would say most internet today is curated. The largest issue in addition to lack of openness networks is what the network contains, we have min maxed the internet for profitability and in the wake more tech debt which no one wants to own. You are probably asking tech debt? Let me just say this tech debt comes in the shape of garbage data, false news articles and propaganda. Last one propaganda isn't necessarily something a government makes but business do it to for misdirection. This is usually done because there is no accountability for anyone utilizing the internet. What I'm getting at is the fact there is a lack of accountability those who keep building up the internet keep piling garbage on garbage. One day the internet will cease because there will be so much unimportant information and misinformation on the internet that it will force governments to curate the internet. Which they sort of do already. So before we can have truly an Open Web we need to help pick up the trash we've all created over the years. Set regulations that protect the internet from further garbage. If we don't hold someone accountable eventually we will be forced down the path of a Closed Web. I strongly believe in Open Web from browsers to the freedom of starting your own webpage without restrictions. We just have to make progress.
- libraryatnight 3y ago
  waahh everything is pointless because if i do something positive someone else might do something negative. waaaaah just go out and do something nice and refuse to be part of something shitty and maybe things will work out.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Please add something to the discussion.
  - Sparkyte 3y ago
    I think you read the first paragraph and off ranted. Firstly I am for Open Web, but the lack of regulation enforcing accountability prevents this from ever occurring. Tech debt in various forms also prevent this. We need to get passed those two large hurdles. I don't see Open Web happening because the further decades of tech debt the further we get from the goal.
villgax 3y ago
Private internet/VPNs with no government presence/censorship is the only way forward. Buy all your SDR transceivers while you can before they get outlawed lol
low_tech_punk 3y ago
Google, please read "Web Platform Design Principles - Priority of Constituencies": > The internet is for end users: any change made to the web platform has the potential to affect vast numbers of people, and may have a profound impact on any person’s life. [RFC8890] > User needs come before the needs of web page authors, which come before the needs of user agent implementors, which come before the needs of specification writers, which come before theoretical purity. Ref: https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constit...
- samtho 3y ago
  Google as a company just does not care. No amount of pointing out violations of web standards or norms is going to make them care and statements such as this only amount to indignation-fueled, self-congratulatory rhetoric.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > > The internet is for end users: any change made to the web platform has the potential to affect vast numbers of people, and may have a profound impact on any person’s life. [RFC8890] That ship sailed when the W3C accepted EME. The internet ceased to be about the end users, but for media company and their DRM. They didn't have to accept it as a standard, if Google and Netflix wanted their own DRM system then their problem, not the web.
- Vinnl 3y ago
  You can easily pretend you're respecting the priority of constituencies if you (i.e. Google) just say that the needs of web page authors are the needs of users ("otherwise the websites users want to visit would disappear").
  - the_lego 3y ago
    I.e. home taping is killing music, VCRs should be illegal, etc.. Amazing how the same lie remains effective after being proven false so many times.
- 3y ago
arendtio 3y ago
I love that picture as it shows the difference in size and how chromium just sucks everything in, but somehow I miss the fallen Konqi (KDE mascot) in it. Konqueror (the KDE Browser) with KHTML was the origin of Webkit and therefore Chromium, but due to the vast improvements Apple (and later Google) made to the code base, KHTML and Konqueror became obsolete. Nowadays, KDE users better use Firefox.
- Gualdrapo 3y ago
  > Nowadays, KDE users better use Firefox. Meh, I've been just fine with Falkon. As I was with reKonq back in KDE SC4.
Knee_Pain 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Gualdrapo 3y ago
I thought I was gonna find some comment in here appreciating Revoy's artistry and dedication for his craft and his commitment to FOSS but it seems everyone just jumped on the web browser argument. It makes me realize how his work just goes unappreciated, like those beautiful snippets he did for a guide to Git.
- news_hacker 3y ago
  do you have a link to the git guide?
- Given_47 3y ago
  I didn’t previously know of this guy, but I also hoped there would be more discussion of the artwork cuz I really like it. The uBO shield was such a nice touch as well. Thanks for adding some context to Revoy, I’ll definitely check out more of his stuff
NylaTheWolf 3y ago
I saw this on Mastodon! Gorgeous art!!!

187 points by pabs3 3y ago

If fingerprinting is so effective and reliable, as we have been told on HN countless times, then why is Google proposing WEI. Honest question.

pmlnr 3y ago
Because it's not just the ability of tracking in question but the ability to display the ads as well.
Santosh83 3y ago
WEI is for controlling what software runs in the stack, from the bootloader upwards. Traditional secure boot gives assurances up to the kernel. WEI will extend it up to the browser. So more layers of the stack are secured from unauthorized modifications.
- realusername 3y ago
  You should not use the word "secure", it only checks the integrity, it doesn't guarantee any security, same as on Android. Same for "authorized" which is a bit misleading because only manufacturers can authorize modifications, not users.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    The same goes for the word "trusted" as it's often used, e.g. "trusted computing" and the like. Who's doing the trusting? Not the users.
    - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
      Trusted is a warm and fuzzy sounding word. But always remember that in terms of security, trust is at best a necessary evil. Trust makes you vulnerable to abuse of that trust. "Trusted" is not equal to "trustworthy".
agilob 3y ago
It's been my worry that at some point Google will force DRM on YouTube and I won't be able to backup interesting channels, but I didn't expect Google will put DRM on majority of websites. Last week Google granted itself rights to scrape all the internet for its AI, but doesn't us to do it. https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-privacy-policy-train-web-scraping https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-pr...
- realusername 3y ago
  The genius marketing move behind Google nowadays is convincing people that indexing and scraping are two different things and they are the only entity allowed to do it.
gmerc 3y ago
because it’s not about fingerprinting or even identity, it’s about forcing the browser to not run code like adblock or code that scrapes their treasured data they amassed for AI use Google knows well enough that their solution does not attest humans - it attests machines which may or may not be used by humans. The web is already full of vietnamese click farms of physical android devices with real accounts, their narrative is about misdirection
- realusername 3y ago
  Exactly, anybody who think this will solve any issue with bots needs to take a hard look on Android and how absolutely nothing changed with the play integrity api, the click farms are just as big as before. It's effective against thirdparty roms and competitors though.
charcircuit 3y ago
Because it means that browsers can try to implement features that resist fingerprinting without hurting legitimate use cases of the web.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pkulak 3y ago
My guess is that they want to stop bots from creating Google accounts once and for all. I don’t see them putting DRM on YouTube. That would break every app everywhere, and many of them can never be updated. Most could never be updated to this scheme.
- peteforde 3y ago
  I remember when it was common to release third-party Twitter clients and bots were considered first-class citizens. Large companies are far less uptight about breaking ecosystems that you might think. I say this as a former VB6 developer.
jsnell 3y ago
Chrome wants to get rid of fingerprinting, and has for many years (see the entire Privacy Sandbox effort). But they cannot do it unilaterally, they need to identify the legit use cases and design + implement new privacy-preserving technologies to meet those use cases. (Yes, yes, we all know Apple and Firefox have been able to such things unilaterally. But as we've seen by the different reception from Apple having shipped remote integrity attestations in prod for a year to Chrome just proposing it, the rules aren't the same for all browsers.) Fraud prevention/anti-abuse is both an extensive use case for fingerprinting and the most obviously legitimate one. If we demand that browsers close off all the fingerprinting loopholes (it's a great goal!) but don't allow a replacement, the web will be mostly dead as a platform in 10 years. All economic activity will move to native apps on walled garden platforms that are able to provide effective anti-fraud mechanisms.
throw_m239339 3y ago
WEI is about installing some (closed source) spyware on your computer so that Google knows you're using the "right kind" of client.
npteljes 3y ago
Because it's about control, not safety. Or it's about safety, but not for the user, but for whomever publishes content, or software.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nuker 3y ago

Why the fox? Safari (WebKit) was always first to implement major privacy features, not Firefox.

jdsalaro 3y ago
> Why the fox? Perhaps because Firefox, and the Mozilla foundation as a whole, are one of the few projects not trying to milk you for data nor money? Might be a good enough reason in my book.
- PathfinderBot 3y ago
  > The detachment from reality I see in some HN readers is really mind boggling sometimes. I try to balance it out by flagging unconstructive comments, leaving it alone, and participating in more constructive threads instead. For reference, take the classic "don't feed the trolls" advice, in combination with Lobster's flag types: > For comments, these are: "Off-topic" for drifting into meta or topics that aren't related to the story; "Me-too" when a comment doesn't add new information, typically a single sentence of appreciation, agreement, or humor; "Troll" for derailing conversations into classic arguments, well-intentioned or not; "Unkind" when uncharitable, insulting, or dismissive; and "Spam" for promoting commercial services.
  - jdsalaro 3y ago
    I agree, thanks for raising this.
Keirmot 3y ago
Because Apple doesn’t support Windows nor Android
- pkulak 3y ago
  Nor Linux.
lrem 3y ago
Apple was also the first to ship attestations in Safari.

nathias 3y ago

The fight was already lost, we must now fight the consequences of our defeat. Every year google squeezes its hold and introduces new chrome 'features' to serve its purposes. Platform capitalism seems to have come to a new stage, consolidation of power, closing off borders. Maybe now people will come to realize why protocols matter, and you can't replace them with APIs.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
FWIW I was going to write practically the same thing.
- nathias 3y ago
  there was lots of us, but far far too few to make a difference
flagrant_taco 3y ago
Unfortunately protocols seem to have no chance as long as people just want convenience and immediate gratification. For companies there's no profit in protocols, we love talking about motes and with data that means owning users' data and clutching onto like Gollum with his precious ring.

malikNF 3y ago

I have converted most of my family and friends to ff in the past month. I take my time and help them understand why the change is needed. The biggest reason they were afraid to move was because they had stored years worth passwords and other setting on their browsers. Take some time and help a few people out. If everyone convert a few people and explain why they need to and help them with their issues. We can do this. Mr don't be evil has become too evil at this point.

PathfinderBot 3y ago
This is great advice! Instead of expecting non-techies to handle the migration to more ethical platforms by themselves or leaving them in the control of large corporations, us techies have an obligation to help them with such tasks.
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  How do I help my non-techy friends to not be in control of technical decisions large organizations (I don't really have those) or to make the right decisions, while there are 10 "techy people" recommending Chrome, for every 1 privacy aware techy person like me, if not more, and these non-techy friends are not able to judge who has their best interest at heart or who knows their stuff best? How do they know who is the most knowledgeable? There is always a huge temptation to choose convenience over privacy or security. If then some technical person recommends that avenue ... And then comes along some accidental change, that breaks YouTube or GMail or whatever on Firefox ...
  - PathfinderBot 3y ago
    Thanks for asking. I haven't finished thinking it through, and I am young without much experience, but I think a possible avenue would be a return to the expectation that there is an "IT guy in the family" to help set up phones and computers for others to use. Essentially, there needs to be a culture change. There is some prior literature to this, for example https://runyourown.social/ https://runyourown.social/. In this case, the non-techies don't need to know or care much about free software, convenience vs privacy/security, who is most knowledgeable, how to not be in the control of large corporations, etc., since it'll be the techie's job to help them set up their OSes and teach them how to use the functionality that they want to use. Additionally, I am assuming that techies are principled enough and knowledgeable enough to hold their own against corporations' anti-user decisions and advertising. As a practical example, if a techie is culturally expected to buy and set up a laptop for a non tech-savvy member of the family, then the techie can simply install Tor Browser instead of Chrome and set it up to make sure it's working. Any additional instructions, if needed, can be taught via post-it notes. Humans are adaptable, and if the internet speed is acceptable via Tor, then I don't think most people would care or complain. Of course, I cannot ignore the fact that to some people this seems like a power-grab by techies, or that people's expectations of technology has changed from "oh I'll just ask the IT family member" to "I expect to be able to use <device> out of the box". But I think this is an idea worth exploring, given how flexible it is.

voz_ 3y ago

As long as FF takes Google money, it’s tarnished.

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
So what alternative do you suggest?
bimblesticks 3y ago
We don’t live in a perfect world, and the priority should be preventing Google from having complete control over the internet. If you have any better ideas for how to do that, please let us know.
toyg 3y ago
Is a national park "tarnished", if funded with tax money coming from a highly-polluting industry...? As long as FF takes Google money, it's less money going to fund anti-web activities.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > Is a national park "tarnished", if funded with tax money coming from a highly-polluting industry...? The difference is the majority of national parks funding might not come from highly-pollting industry. Mozilla corp would not survive for long without Google's bribes.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Maybe, maybe they'd step up their fundraising instead.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
What do you propose as the alternative? And do you have any reason to believe FF is making meaningful decisions based on coercion from Google? Mozilla has to keep paying the bills. I expect most people would be upset if they starting charging for the browser or selling ads, and I frequently see complaints when they focus on any products other than FF and MDN. If private donations won't cut it and sponsorships tarnish their standing, what's left?

tkubacki 3y ago

Serous question: I don't get why so much steam goes towards Chrome which can be basically open source (Chromium) and the same folks accept Microsoft Windows perfectly well (which is closed source and has much bigger impact on our privacy IMHO) Edit: same with MacOs?

audunw 3y ago
I think you’re confusing two things. How open standards are developed/pushed vs open source. In the context of web integrity API, what good does it do that chromium can be open source? Whether a browser is potentially fully open source has no impact on the bad google is doing by pushing evil we. standards through the mainline chrome browser. Personally I’ve switched to just using Safari on MacOS simply because giving Apple some power against Google in adoption of web standards is beneficial in my view. Apple is one of the few companies not incentivised by maximising ad revenues which is really toxic to the web. Not that I like what Apple is doing in general. On Windows I’ve used Firefox only for years. (Why not on MacOS? My laptop (only macOS machine I have) is a bit old, safari runs smoother, and I like the iOS integration futures)
userbinator 3y ago
Whether the source is open doesn't matter, and in fact I think that's part of a distraction; it's orthogonal to the issue of whether the software respects the user's freedom or is a way for a third-party to control the user (turning it into a "used"). Both closed and open source user-hostile software exists, and the same goes for software that isn't user-hostile. Also, I suspect many of those who are anti-WEI are also either not Windows users, or Windows users who are grudgingly doing so and have also killed off the spyware and customised the environment to their own liking, which can still be done even without requiring source code.
bimblesticks 3y ago
Can’t speak for everyone else but I just think that getting people to change their OS is much harder than getting people to change their web browser, so it makes sense to start there. Chromium is in that awkward position where it is technically an open-source community-driven project but in practice operates like a closed-source one. Google has complete control over decisions and can make changes that serve their profits (see: JPEGXL debacle). Of course, you can make the same critique of Firefox, but at the very least they are a nonprofit foundation and don’t have enough market share to abuse their power.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jruz 3y ago

I think this is actually great, users will finally have a reason to switch from Chrome to an open browser. Ofc they will fight back an allow only their browser on their services, which again will be a great push to use open and privacy conscious alternatives. So let them go as closed as they want

Sparkyte 3y ago

I feel like the concept of Open Web runs hard against the institutions that fund the development and growth of the internet. I'm not saying I don't support the Open Web concept. I do but it seems more like a pipe dream than something that will just happen. If a country sees the internet as a threat it will just create its own network and only allow its population to see what it deems alright. I would say most internet today is curated. The largest issue in addition to lack of openness networks is what the network contains, we have min maxed the internet for profitability and in the wake more tech debt which no one wants to own. You are probably asking tech debt? Let me just say this tech debt comes in the shape of garbage data, false news articles and propaganda. Last one propaganda isn't necessarily something a government makes but business do it to for misdirection. This is usually done because there is no accountability for anyone utilizing the internet. What I'm getting at is the fact there is a lack of accountability those who keep building up the internet keep piling garbage on garbage. One day the internet will cease because there will be so much unimportant information and misinformation on the internet that it will force governments to curate the internet. Which they sort of do already. So before we can have truly an Open Web we need to help pick up the trash we've all created over the years. Set regulations that protect the internet from further garbage. If we don't hold someone accountable eventually we will be forced down the path of a Closed Web. I strongly believe in Open Web from browsers to the freedom of starting your own webpage without restrictions. We just have to make progress.

libraryatnight 3y ago
waahh everything is pointless because if i do something positive someone else might do something negative. waaaaah just go out and do something nice and refuse to be part of something shitty and maybe things will work out.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Please add something to the discussion.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  I think you read the first paragraph and off ranted. Firstly I am for Open Web, but the lack of regulation enforcing accountability prevents this from ever occurring. Tech debt in various forms also prevent this. We need to get passed those two large hurdles. I don't see Open Web happening because the further decades of tech debt the further we get from the goal.

villgax 3y ago

Private internet/VPNs with no government presence/censorship is the only way forward. Buy all your SDR transceivers while you can before they get outlawed lol

low_tech_punk 3y ago

Google, please read "Web Platform Design Principles - Priority of Constituencies": > The internet is for end users: any change made to the web platform has the potential to affect vast numbers of people, and may have a profound impact on any person’s life. [RFC8890] > User needs come before the needs of web page authors, which come before the needs of user agent implementors, which come before the needs of specification writers, which come before theoretical purity. Ref: https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constit...

samtho 3y ago
Google as a company just does not care. No amount of pointing out violations of web standards or norms is going to make them care and statements such as this only amount to indignation-fueled, self-congratulatory rhetoric.
throw_m239339 3y ago
> > The internet is for end users: any change made to the web platform has the potential to affect vast numbers of people, and may have a profound impact on any person’s life. [RFC8890] That ship sailed when the W3C accepted EME. The internet ceased to be about the end users, but for media company and their DRM. They didn't have to accept it as a standard, if Google and Netflix wanted their own DRM system then their problem, not the web.
Vinnl 3y ago
You can easily pretend you're respecting the priority of constituencies if you (i.e. Google) just say that the needs of web page authors are the needs of users ("otherwise the websites users want to visit would disappear").
- the_lego 3y ago
  I.e. home taping is killing music, VCRs should be illegal, etc.. Amazing how the same lie remains effective after being proven false so many times.
3y ago

arendtio 3y ago

I love that picture as it shows the difference in size and how chromium just sucks everything in, but somehow I miss the fallen Konqi (KDE mascot) in it. Konqueror (the KDE Browser) with KHTML was the origin of Webkit and therefore Chromium, but due to the vast improvements Apple (and later Google) made to the code base, KHTML and Konqueror became obsolete. Nowadays, KDE users better use Firefox.

Gualdrapo 3y ago
> Nowadays, KDE users better use Firefox. Meh, I've been just fine with Falkon. As I was with reKonq back in KDE SC4.

Knee_Pain 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Gualdrapo 3y ago

I thought I was gonna find some comment in here appreciating Revoy's artistry and dedication for his craft and his commitment to FOSS but it seems everyone just jumped on the web browser argument. It makes me realize how his work just goes unappreciated, like those beautiful snippets he did for a guide to Git.

news_hacker 3y ago
do you have a link to the git guide?
Given_47 3y ago
I didn’t previously know of this guy, but I also hoped there would be more discussion of the artwork cuz I really like it. The uBO shield was such a nice touch as well. Thanks for adding some context to Revoy, I’ll definitely check out more of his stuff

NylaTheWolf 3y ago

I saw this on Mastodon! Gorgeous art!!!