7 ms·

IMHO the EU should step in. Having a browser that is not controlled by big tech should be part of an effort to reduce the dependency on the US.

by _ink_ 2y ago

royal_ts 2y ago
or to invest in Servo
- alex_duf 2y ago
  Not sure if you're aware but servo is currently funded by the linux foundation Europe. Not quite tax money, but European capital.
- delroth 2y ago
  The EU invests in Servo already, for example through NLNet grants.
rightbyte 2y ago
How about not involving governments in how Firefox is run. Especially not those keen on backdoors and "Chat control". It could be a stand alone association ruled by its members or a classic free-for-all whatever goes code talks FOSS project.
- notpushkin 2y ago
  If they can invest some money with no strings attached – hey, why not.
  - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
    The funding is the string simply because it can be taken away.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > funding is the string simply because it can be taken away Endow a working group under Fraunhofer [1]. Their product is simply and solely a browser engine. Nothing more. [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/en.html https://www.fraunhofer.de/en.html
  - noxer 2y ago
    Have you asked the people who pay in the end (the taxpayer) if they want that? The very last thing I want my taxes to go to is anything that has "no strings attached". Its by definition a gift and gifting taxes should be a crime.
    - notpushkin 2y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree, though how to utilize the tax money isn’t the problematic part in the taxation IMO.
    - tonyhart7 2y ago
      if its come with string attached then another agency (ehm ehm intelligence) would try to get their hands on them
      - rat9988 2y ago
        Agencies seem to get involved even in private "independant" companies. It has nothing to do with the official string attachments.
    - Sayrus 2y ago
      Then taxes could be used to pay government employees whose job is to contribute on a specific project. That could apply to Linux, a browser, maybe AOSP. Sure it'd require funding, but spent on employees within said countries you get it back and it does give Europe as a whole the ability to contribute its vision, both positive and negative.
      - noxer 2y ago
        Whether the people are employed by the government directly or a different entity isn't relevant at all, the relevant part is taxes being used for something that has an undefined benefit for the people who are forced to pay for it. (And in case of "no string attacked" even has an undefined goal.) >give Europe as a whole the ability to contribute its vision Who's vision? The peoples vision? Or the vision of bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists etc.
- t43562 2y ago
  A gaggle of governments with conflicting interests are less fearful than some private individuals with simple goals - like getting rich. Currently private companies rule the browser world and they wield incredible power over everything from standards to PKI. Their interest is a world that depends on them even more.
  - samlinnfer 2y ago
    They seem united on censoring free speech and removing all privacy.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  The non-gov approach has been the last decades. I don't find the result convincing to be honest. The path you're proposing has been pushed by the community for about how long the Mozilla foundation existed. I'm not sure asking them one more time will make a big difference.
- culi 2y ago
  They don't have to tell them how to run it. But it would be for the benefit of everyone if they could give grants to Mozilla to help them wean off of Google Mozilla has been less and less dependent on Google and is now working on a VPN, MDN Plus, and other revenue streams that are also helping it become more independent. But the truth is that if all Google money suddenly stopped today, there would be no more Mozilla
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    The problem is that the people in power to remove the funding are the same people who are pushing for chat control and removal of encryption. Even if say the terms says that the funding is just a sponsorship, it would encourage few government folks to look out for more knowing the company would die if they stop funding.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    As a European citizen, why would I want my taxes to fund a browser built by a US entity and still subject to the whims of the current US administration? Unless you mean that Mozilla should move completely to Europe, sure. But the part about the EU not telling Mozilla what to do is naive. If my taxes pay for it, of course I want the EU to tell Mozilla what to do.
ponow 2y ago
As if centralization with one big company weren't enough, now we're not even satisfied with one country, but a block of them. Yikes. Nope, run in the opposite direction. Unsuck from any teat.
- t43562 2y ago
  a block of countries is what makes them far less worrisome. They're too busy competing with each other - none is going to want the others spying on it's own citizens for gain.
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    Is that the same as a republic of independent states? As long as the EU doesn't have the equivalent of the Commerce Clause then, sure.
ekianjo 2y ago
A dysfunctional company is not going to benefit from the addition of a dysfunctional political layer
sleepyhead 2y ago
[flagged]
- immibis 2y ago
  What?
  - _ink_ 2y ago
    It's a reference to an effort of the EU to reduce plastic waste in the environment by tethering the plastic bottle caps to their bottles. Instead of rethinking their consumption habits, people are making fun it, suggesting the EU can't do anything productive.
    - t43562 2y ago
      ..and yet this sort of thing works because it doesn't rely on people to show much responsibility.
    - immibis 2y ago
      What does it have to do with browsers?
- jeppester 2y ago
  Attaching the bottle cap is a great idea that prevents unnecessary plastic pollution. It is an example of the EU doing something reasonable that a private company would never be motivated to do.
- regularjack 2y ago
  You think attached bottle caps are a bad thing?
hagbard_c 2y ago
State involvement tends to come with strings attached. The EU would insist on the browser to implement mechanisms to 'limit the spread of mis-, dis- and malinformation' where it is up to the whims of the politicos in Brussels to decide what the populace is allowed to see and what is to be suppressed. To that I say a loud and clear 'thanks but no thanks', I prefer my technology to work for me instead of it being an enforcement mechanism for the powers that be.
- t43562 2y ago
  Possibly but right now you're being guided to whatever information makes the most ad revenue. A choice of two compromised mechanisms might be better than none.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    No, that is not the issue here - this is not about which sites I frequent but about whether the browser I use to do so tries to keep me from going there. The content of those sites can be influenced by advertising (which I rigorously block, no exceptions) but the browser as of yet does not attempt to keep me from visiting site A nor does it change its contents (other than by means of the content blocker which I have control over) to match some ideological goal. An EU-financed browser could end up doing these things which is why I do not want the EU to get involved in this way.
    - t43562 2y ago
      It could but a national government is more likely to block sites at the ISP level. Also ... private companies can block things they don't like, such as competitors...or alter their search rankings.
      - hagbard_c 2y ago
        Currently Firefox does not do any of those things out of the .deb/.tar.gz. I'd like to keep it that way, hence my resistance against involvement by parties which have shown to be either susceptible to or directly calling for censorship. This is also one of the many reasons why I wanted to see Mitchell Baker disappear from the organisation as she clearly was calling for active censorship. I frankly do not understand all the resistance against a call for a politically neutral tech infrastructure. To all those people frantically pressing that down-vote button, do you really desire for your tech infrastructure to be ideologically driven? Do you even understand what such a thing means and what it will lead to?
dismalaf 2y ago
There's already an independent Europe based browser... Vivaldi.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  Vivaldi is just a chromium wrapper as far as I understand.
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    It's Chromium with the Google bits ripped out, Vivaldi has their own sign in/sync functionality, built in ad blocker, and custom UI. It's based on Chromium but has quite a bit different going on, as much as Brave or Edge.
    - tredre3 2y ago
      But unlike Brave and Edge, Vivaldi isn't open-source.
      - dismalaf 2y ago
        https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser... They basically just want to keep the copyright to their UI. You can see the source but they don't want anyone to rip off their UI. And let's be real, every browser (even Firefox) has closed source server side code. Also, the comment I initially responded to was about why isn't there a European browser not controlled by "big tech"... Vivaldi is an independent company in Europe making a browser.
        TheDong 2y ago
        > And let's be real, every browser (even Firefox) has closed source server side code. What is Firefox's? Accounts and Sync are both open source, and I'm struggling to think of anything else i.e. https://github.com/mozilla/fxa https://github.com/mozilla/fxa
laweijfmvo 2y ago
Ah yes, the same EU that forced Apple to disable encryption. Perfect
- choo-t 2y ago
  That's UK.
ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
What happened to HN that people are arguing for more government regulations?

IMHO the EU should step in. Having a browser that is not controlled by big tech should be part of an effort to reduce the dependency on the US.

by _ink_ 2y ago

IMHO the EU should step in. Having a browser that is not controlled by big tech should be part of an effort to reduce the dependency on the US.

royal_ts 2y ago

or to invest in Servo

alex_duf 2y ago
Not sure if you're aware but servo is currently funded by the linux foundation Europe. Not quite tax money, but European capital.
delroth 2y ago
The EU invests in Servo already, for example through NLNet grants.

rightbyte 2y ago

How about not involving governments in how Firefox is run. Especially not those keen on backdoors and "Chat control". It could be a stand alone association ruled by its members or a classic free-for-all whatever goes code talks FOSS project.

notpushkin 2y ago
If they can invest some money with no strings attached – hey, why not.
- fauigerzigerk 2y ago
  The funding is the string simply because it can be taken away.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > funding is the string simply because it can be taken away Endow a working group under Fraunhofer [1]. Their product is simply and solely a browser engine. Nothing more. [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/en.html https://www.fraunhofer.de/en.html
- noxer 2y ago
  Have you asked the people who pay in the end (the taxpayer) if they want that? The very last thing I want my taxes to go to is anything that has "no strings attached". Its by definition a gift and gifting taxes should be a crime.
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree, though how to utilize the tax money isn’t the problematic part in the taxation IMO.
  - tonyhart7 2y ago
    if its come with string attached then another agency (ehm ehm intelligence) would try to get their hands on them
    - rat9988 2y ago
      Agencies seem to get involved even in private "independant" companies. It has nothing to do with the official string attachments.
  - Sayrus 2y ago
    Then taxes could be used to pay government employees whose job is to contribute on a specific project. That could apply to Linux, a browser, maybe AOSP. Sure it'd require funding, but spent on employees within said countries you get it back and it does give Europe as a whole the ability to contribute its vision, both positive and negative.
    - noxer 2y ago
      Whether the people are employed by the government directly or a different entity isn't relevant at all, the relevant part is taxes being used for something that has an undefined benefit for the people who are forced to pay for it. (And in case of "no string attacked" even has an undefined goal.) >give Europe as a whole the ability to contribute its vision Who's vision? The peoples vision? Or the vision of bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists etc.
t43562 2y ago
A gaggle of governments with conflicting interests are less fearful than some private individuals with simple goals - like getting rich. Currently private companies rule the browser world and they wield incredible power over everything from standards to PKI. Their interest is a world that depends on them even more.
- samlinnfer 2y ago
  They seem united on censoring free speech and removing all privacy.
makeitdouble 2y ago
The non-gov approach has been the last decades. I don't find the result convincing to be honest. The path you're proposing has been pushed by the community for about how long the Mozilla foundation existed. I'm not sure asking them one more time will make a big difference.
culi 2y ago
They don't have to tell them how to run it. But it would be for the benefit of everyone if they could give grants to Mozilla to help them wean off of Google Mozilla has been less and less dependent on Google and is now working on a VPN, MDN Plus, and other revenue streams that are also helping it become more independent. But the truth is that if all Google money suddenly stopped today, there would be no more Mozilla
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  The problem is that the people in power to remove the funding are the same people who are pushing for chat control and removal of encryption. Even if say the terms says that the funding is just a sponsorship, it would encourage few government folks to look out for more knowing the company would die if they stop funding.
- bad_user 2y ago
  As a European citizen, why would I want my taxes to fund a browser built by a US entity and still subject to the whims of the current US administration? Unless you mean that Mozilla should move completely to Europe, sure. But the part about the EU not telling Mozilla what to do is naive. If my taxes pay for it, of course I want the EU to tell Mozilla what to do.

ponow 2y ago

As if centralization with one big company weren't enough, now we're not even satisfied with one country, but a block of them. Yikes. Nope, run in the opposite direction. Unsuck from any teat.

t43562 2y ago
a block of countries is what makes them far less worrisome. They're too busy competing with each other - none is going to want the others spying on it's own citizens for gain.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  Is that the same as a republic of independent states? As long as the EU doesn't have the equivalent of the Commerce Clause then, sure.

ekianjo 2y ago

A dysfunctional company is not going to benefit from the addition of a dysfunctional political layer

sleepyhead 2y ago

[flagged]

immibis 2y ago
What?
- _ink_ 2y ago
  It's a reference to an effort of the EU to reduce plastic waste in the environment by tethering the plastic bottle caps to their bottles. Instead of rethinking their consumption habits, people are making fun it, suggesting the EU can't do anything productive.
  - t43562 2y ago
    ..and yet this sort of thing works because it doesn't rely on people to show much responsibility.
  - immibis 2y ago
    What does it have to do with browsers?
jeppester 2y ago
Attaching the bottle cap is a great idea that prevents unnecessary plastic pollution. It is an example of the EU doing something reasonable that a private company would never be motivated to do.
regularjack 2y ago
You think attached bottle caps are a bad thing?

hagbard_c 2y ago

State involvement tends to come with strings attached. The EU would insist on the browser to implement mechanisms to 'limit the spread of mis-, dis- and malinformation' where it is up to the whims of the politicos in Brussels to decide what the populace is allowed to see and what is to be suppressed. To that I say a loud and clear 'thanks but no thanks', I prefer my technology to work for me instead of it being an enforcement mechanism for the powers that be.

t43562 2y ago
Possibly but right now you're being guided to whatever information makes the most ad revenue. A choice of two compromised mechanisms might be better than none.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  No, that is not the issue here - this is not about which sites I frequent but about whether the browser I use to do so tries to keep me from going there. The content of those sites can be influenced by advertising (which I rigorously block, no exceptions) but the browser as of yet does not attempt to keep me from visiting site A nor does it change its contents (other than by means of the content blocker which I have control over) to match some ideological goal. An EU-financed browser could end up doing these things which is why I do not want the EU to get involved in this way.
  - t43562 2y ago
    It could but a national government is more likely to block sites at the ISP level. Also ... private companies can block things they don't like, such as competitors...or alter their search rankings.
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      Currently Firefox does not do any of those things out of the .deb/.tar.gz. I'd like to keep it that way, hence my resistance against involvement by parties which have shown to be either susceptible to or directly calling for censorship. This is also one of the many reasons why I wanted to see Mitchell Baker disappear from the organisation as she clearly was calling for active censorship. I frankly do not understand all the resistance against a call for a politically neutral tech infrastructure. To all those people frantically pressing that down-vote button, do you really desire for your tech infrastructure to be ideologically driven? Do you even understand what such a thing means and what it will lead to?

dismalaf 2y ago

There's already an independent Europe based browser... Vivaldi.

marginalia_nu 2y ago
Vivaldi is just a chromium wrapper as far as I understand.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  It's Chromium with the Google bits ripped out, Vivaldi has their own sign in/sync functionality, built in ad blocker, and custom UI. It's based on Chromium but has quite a bit different going on, as much as Brave or Edge.
  - tredre3 2y ago
    But unlike Brave and Edge, Vivaldi isn't open-source.
    - dismalaf 2y ago
      https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser... They basically just want to keep the copyright to their UI. You can see the source but they don't want anyone to rip off their UI. And let's be real, every browser (even Firefox) has closed source server side code. Also, the comment I initially responded to was about why isn't there a European browser not controlled by "big tech"... Vivaldi is an independent company in Europe making a browser.
      - TheDong 2y ago
        > And let's be real, every browser (even Firefox) has closed source server side code. What is Firefox's? Accounts and Sync are both open source, and I'm struggling to think of anything else i.e. https://github.com/mozilla/fxa https://github.com/mozilla/fxa

laweijfmvo 2y ago

Ah yes, the same EU that forced Apple to disable encryption. Perfect

choo-t 2y ago
That's UK.

ThrowawayTestr 2y ago

What happened to HN that people are arguing for more government regulations?