3 ms·

I'm not saying pro-native-apps outright even if that might be what it gets boiled down as. I'm saying I do not trust anything that runs in a browser. I actively

I'm not saying pro-native-apps outright even if that might be what it gets boiled down as. I'm saying I do not trust anything that runs in a browser. I actively block as much nonsense as possible. I do not trust devs that write code to run in browsers. There's a lot of devs getting taken out in the blast radius, but the only way to be sure is to take off and nuke it from orbit. There are devs out there hell bent on writing malicious code. I am willing to take a stand and refuse to use things when the net result is negative. I do not use social media. I do not shop at Walmart. These are the decisions I'm willing to live with even if it makes life slightly less "easy" because I've made a moral decision to not open myself up to nonsense just to later ask "what happened...".

lxgr 7mo ago
Sure, you do what works for you. But why advocate for even more limits to how other people use their computers? One person's nonsense is another person's treasured hobby. Yes, bad actors exist, but why concede every single nice thing to them?
- dylan604 7mo ago
  again, net negative is being glossed over. whatever good and nice things there might be, if it is being used more for negative purposes, you need to consider is it worth it at all or was it rushed and needing more thought before the PoC was pushed to prod
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    How can you tell that the negatives were glossed over? Just by WebUSB's eventual launch? Have you considered that different people might have different value preferences than you?
    - albuic 6mo ago
      It bas been and that's why Firefox refused to implement it. It's good that this is done with a plugin as it is not on by default as mist people do not understand the risks. Making it more difficult offers a bit more protection for most people. Google is known for launching stuff in the webbrowser without thought from a security and privacy standpoint. They are business oriented, not privacy oriented.

lxgr 7mo ago

Sure, you do what works for you. But why advocate for even more limits to how other people use their computers? One person's nonsense is another person's treasured hobby. Yes, bad actors exist, but why concede every single nice thing to them?

dylan604 7mo ago
again, net negative is being glossed over. whatever good and nice things there might be, if it is being used more for negative purposes, you need to consider is it worth it at all or was it rushed and needing more thought before the PoC was pushed to prod
- lxgr 7mo ago
  How can you tell that the negatives were glossed over? Just by WebUSB's eventual launch? Have you considered that different people might have different value preferences than you?
  - albuic 6mo ago
    It bas been and that's why Firefox refused to implement it. It's good that this is done with a plugin as it is not on by default as mist people do not understand the risks. Making it more difficult offers a bit more protection for most people. Google is known for launching stuff in the webbrowser without thought from a security and privacy standpoint. They are business oriented, not privacy oriented.