> Today, IndexedDB can typically store hundreds of megabytes to multiple gigabytes of data, depending on device capacity. Chrome allows up to ~80% of free disk

> Today, IndexedDB can typically store hundreds of megabytes to multiple gigabytes of data, depending on device capacity. Chrome allows up to ~80% of free disk space per origin (tens of GB on a desktop), Firefox now supports on the order of gigabytes per site (10% of disk size), and even Safari (historically strict) permits around 1GB per origin on iOS. Does anyone else see this as more harmful than beneficial? It would be one thing if expanded storage were a new permission that I had to explicitly grant to a site, maybe with the ability to set a budget per site. As is, now every random website that I visit can store an arbitrary amount of data on my hard drive and it's on me to stay on top of that by clearing out data regularly (but hopefully remembering not to clear data from the sites that I care about!). I don't think we can live in a world where arbitrary sites can store whatever they want on your computer—leaving it up to you to clean up the mess periodically—and at the same time the primary copy of important data from important apps is stored in the same way. In a world where people have to regularly clean up the mess left by hundreds of other developers, even a "local first" web app has to treat the data as only safe once it lands on the developer's server, which means the primary copy is on the server, not the device. In a few cases maybe it would be beneficial to have a full copy offline (maybe your users regularly deal with unreliable connectivity), but most apps won't benefit enough to be worth the hassle. There's no user data sovereignty here until browsers give users sovereignty over who gets to store data in the first place.