4 ms·

What does a government site need that you can't do on firefox? Honestly this is disenfranchising, you should consider the ethics of what you are proscribing for

What does a government site need that you can't do on firefox? Honestly this is disenfranchising, you should consider the ethics of what you are proscribing for the populace. I should have a right to choose a browser that respects my privacy from a PC.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
... there's plenty of privacy-respecting Chromium-derivative browsers...
insanitybit 3y ago
It's clearly not about what is needed, it's about what is tested. And spending resources on a browser that appears to have 2% of the market is not going to be a high priority.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  "appears to have 2%" is doing a lot of work he. If the earlier comments are accurate, the government stats are based on Google Analytics data that is specifically blocked or obscured by Firefox. That 2% kind be breached, but the data doesn't accurately represent usage if Firefix is blocking GA in any meaningful numbers.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    Yeah I used the word "appears" exactly to emphasize that the appearance is sufficient. The government is working with the data they have.
    - riversflow 3y ago
      The government shouldn’t work based on data, but on virtue. That’s the whole point of a constitution, common law, etc.
      - insanitybit 3y ago
        Easier said than done. That introduces the chance for bias and nepotism. The data driven approach is intended to avoid that.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        The data should be accurate though. Any data-driven decisions can easily miss the original intentions if they're made with bogus information. Looking at browser usage data from GA when Firefox specifically blocks it quite often is useless.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        What's your proposal? Because taking an approach that isn't data driven means it needs to be a replacement, and you need to convince people that it's worth the risk of nepotism and bias.
        int_19h 3y ago
        For starters, how about not using a proprietary service from one of the biggest tech oligopolies which has strong economic incentives to misuse any data that passes through it? If government needs accurate tracking numbers to base its decisions on, it should roll its own tracking for those numbers.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        Not a great proposal, frankly.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        My proposal was simply that data-driven decisions should be made based on accurate data. Nepotism and bias aren't the alternative here. If you require that decisions are driven by data and you don't have access to accurate data, you should default to doing nothing. If anything, nepotism and bias sneak in when decisions are made despite the fact that no accurate data is avaliable.
- Chabsff 3y ago
  Exactly. There are a plethora of browsers out there, and no one can be expected to test against all of them. As long as we go for a "government conforming to industry" mentality, then the cutoff has to be somewhere, and if Firefox doesn't make that cutoff, then that's all there is to it. No browser deserves special treatment here. And this is as true for Firefox as it is for Lynx.
  - lproven 3y ago
    > There are a plethora of browsers out there Three is not a plethora. Blink engine, Webkit engine, Gecko engine. Three.
  - Silhouette 3y ago
    A long time ago we had something called "standards" that were intended to solve this problem. The idea was that developers of different browsers would get together in a neutral forum and agree common ground that everyone would support. That way developers could reliably build upon that common ground and expect their products to operate correctly in any browser. It was an excellent idea that heralded the success of the modern WWW. Naturally this enforced competition wasn't in Google's interests as its browser became dominant and it adopted the infamous Microsoft strategy to deal with the threat. Apparently we're fast approaching the extinguish phase. The correct solution to this is for influential public bodies not to insist upon supporting any specific browser or browsers but instead to once again support open web standards and therefore free access to their information and services for all. This is almost certainly in their own interests anyway. Google has a nasty habit of suddenly killing off its non-standardised extensions. Relying on functionality that other browsers don't necessarily support as well seems unwise.
    - IshKebab 3y ago
      Nonsense. Only completely trivial standards work without testing actually implementations against each other. How do you think WiFi devices work together? Is it because WiFi is a standard? Not really - it's because WiFi vendors all test their chips against other WiFi chips on the market.

hammyhavoc 3y ago

... there's plenty of privacy-respecting Chromium-derivative browsers...

insanitybit 3y ago

It's clearly not about what is needed, it's about what is tested. And spending resources on a browser that appears to have 2% of the market is not going to be a high priority.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
"appears to have 2%" is doing a lot of work he. If the earlier comments are accurate, the government stats are based on Google Analytics data that is specifically blocked or obscured by Firefox. That 2% kind be breached, but the data doesn't accurately represent usage if Firefix is blocking GA in any meaningful numbers.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Yeah I used the word "appears" exactly to emphasize that the appearance is sufficient. The government is working with the data they have.
  - riversflow 3y ago
    The government shouldn’t work based on data, but on virtue. That’s the whole point of a constitution, common law, etc.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      Easier said than done. That introduces the chance for bias and nepotism. The data driven approach is intended to avoid that.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        The data should be accurate though. Any data-driven decisions can easily miss the original intentions if they're made with bogus information. Looking at browser usage data from GA when Firefox specifically blocks it quite often is useless.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        What's your proposal? Because taking an approach that isn't data driven means it needs to be a replacement, and you need to convince people that it's worth the risk of nepotism and bias.
        int_19h 3y ago
        For starters, how about not using a proprietary service from one of the biggest tech oligopolies which has strong economic incentives to misuse any data that passes through it? If government needs accurate tracking numbers to base its decisions on, it should roll its own tracking for those numbers.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        Not a great proposal, frankly.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        My proposal was simply that data-driven decisions should be made based on accurate data. Nepotism and bias aren't the alternative here. If you require that decisions are driven by data and you don't have access to accurate data, you should default to doing nothing. If anything, nepotism and bias sneak in when decisions are made despite the fact that no accurate data is avaliable.
Chabsff 3y ago
Exactly. There are a plethora of browsers out there, and no one can be expected to test against all of them. As long as we go for a "government conforming to industry" mentality, then the cutoff has to be somewhere, and if Firefox doesn't make that cutoff, then that's all there is to it. No browser deserves special treatment here. And this is as true for Firefox as it is for Lynx.
- lproven 3y ago
  > There are a plethora of browsers out there Three is not a plethora. Blink engine, Webkit engine, Gecko engine. Three.
- Silhouette 3y ago
  A long time ago we had something called "standards" that were intended to solve this problem. The idea was that developers of different browsers would get together in a neutral forum and agree common ground that everyone would support. That way developers could reliably build upon that common ground and expect their products to operate correctly in any browser. It was an excellent idea that heralded the success of the modern WWW. Naturally this enforced competition wasn't in Google's interests as its browser became dominant and it adopted the infamous Microsoft strategy to deal with the threat. Apparently we're fast approaching the extinguish phase. The correct solution to this is for influential public bodies not to insist upon supporting any specific browser or browsers but instead to once again support open web standards and therefore free access to their information and services for all. This is almost certainly in their own interests anyway. Google has a nasty habit of suddenly killing off its non-standardised extensions. Relying on functionality that other browsers don't necessarily support as well seems unwise.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    Nonsense. Only completely trivial standards work without testing actually implementations against each other. How do you think WiFi devices work together? Is it because WiFi is a standard? Not really - it's because WiFi vendors all test their chips against other WiFi chips on the market.