974
submitted 1 year ago by narwhal@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 262 points 1 year ago

I'll keep using Firefox and be extremely vocal about websites that won't support it. I mean that's all I can really do.

[-] Wootz@lemmy.world 166 points 1 year ago

And hope the EU will oppose it.

[-] Niello@kbin.social 147 points 1 year ago

EU really is the one doing all the good work. Meanwhile, the US government is useless as a government for its size.

[-] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 82 points 1 year ago

corporate-owned america, baby!

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

Why aren’t the vaccuous, corporate whore sociopaths defending our freedoms!?!

[-] dandroid@dandroid.app 50 points 1 year ago

Maybe if our politicians weren't fucking 80 years old and actually understood technology even a little bit.

[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

“Here’s our millennial expert on technology to explain it to us. Thank you for being here.”

“No problem.”

“WHAT”

[-] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 7 points 1 year ago

... they'd know what exact nasty deeds they're being paid for? How does that help you?

First of all, you need accountable politicians that serve their nation. Age, while it's important, is not of prime importance.

[-] mrmanager@lemmy.today 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Basically they have made themselves kings and everyone else are peasants. Now they are dividing the land between them.

[-] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

The US government being useless against megacorps is not a bug, it's a feature

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

Why would they? It's FrEE maRKeT. Google can point to Edge and Safari as proof that they don't have a monopoly on browsers, so no anti-trust issue there no sireee. The fact that Edge is based on Chromium does not factor into this (in fact the EU loves it, just look at what they did to "liberalize" the electricity market, aside from some extremely anecdotal stories, it's all companies whose only job is to build a website and the fiscal "infrastructure" to buy energy from state-controlled producers to resell it at a markup using state-controlled energy distributors, but hey there is a private middleman so it's liberal and the innovation/investment dividends will pay out any year now... any year...).

The concept of the WWW being supported by free, standard, interoperable protocols was never codified into law. Despite how much good it has done so many industries to have a common free interoperable tech stack, it doesn't have to be this way; the French Minitel was a walled garden built by France Telecom, and that was 100% legal, because interoperability is not a legal requirement. The Apple Store and Game Consoles work under the same principle, you basically can't sell anything on there without abiding by some asinine rules (Apple has had some issues but IIRC that has to do with them abusing their monopoly position to extract 30 % of all sales, not with the fact that they have an exclusive App Store to begin with).

Also this whole bullshit is not new and was never legally challenged because there is no case. For years you could not even browse instagram in your browser because they "only supported the mobile app", which was a blatant way to force you into a walled garden where they can force you to watch as many ads as they want and where scraping is much harder.

[-] wagesof@links.wageoffsite.com 54 points 1 year ago

I expect we'll lose about 90% of the web within five years as this becomes normalized.

It will primarily be the seo driven AI crap driven ripoff regurgitated shitfest that's arisen in the last 5 years tho.

I'll be waiting for a search engine to arise that only shows user controllable presentation and will use that.

A way to filter out the corporate trash will make the human web better, not worse.

[-] interolivary@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

Check out Kagi. It's a subscription search service since they don't show you ads, but that also means they don't track you at all (no search history, for example). They also let you influence the priorities of the sites you see in the results or even completely block them, and the results are usually better than Google with less bullshit – or even at worst as good as Google. Some people seem to be skeptical about paying for a search engine, but everybody wanting shit for free is what got us into this fucking mess in the first place

[-] AnomanderRake@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

I second this, was about to recommend Kagi, auto filters listicles, fantastic for actually finding information written by real people on blogs and things that aren't SEO spam

[-] tesseract@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Quick bangs alone almost make it worth it for me. The functionality exists in other browsers but it's not synced, so being universal in the search engine itself is a giant usability improvement for me. Especially when using in conjunction with Orion.

[-] lemann@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

A subscription search is an interesting idea, is there any more info about the company behind Kagi available anywhere? Looking from my phone I can't find much

I personally moved from Google to DDG a few years ago, and the last time I tried Google the results were bootywaste.

[-] bilb@lem.monster 3 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty satisfied with Kagi after using it for a bit over two months.

[-] monobot@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

I expect we'll lose about 90% of the web within five years

Which part? I feel it will be part I don't even want. I might be forced to use that part for work, but that will be nice filter.

I was thinking that "they" ( governments and big corporations) should have their own internet which is clean and ordered and "safe" and leave us on other part. This might be a way to achieve that.

[-] kibiz0r@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this is pretty much my take.

The web sites that are interested in this tool never wanted to be actual web sites. They wanted to be closed client-server systems with proprietary, opaque protocols… HTTP was just a convenient implementation to leverage.

What WEI does is basically allow all of these wanna-be walled gardens to become actual walled gardens.

They never wanted to be interoperable in the first place, so what are we losing? Good riddance.

Maybe with this in place, we’ll be able to start rebuilding the interoperable web that we had before VC money took it over.

We just need a compelling business model for it. “Free” ad-supported is toxic for open discourse, and now it’s functionally deprecated on the open web. I think that’s a good thing, but good changes are not necessarily easy to endure.

I’m not sure how we’ll do it. Attention tokens and all that crypto stuff seems like garbage, but having a thousand different subscriptions to get past paywalls is not great either.

[-] Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi 14 points 1 year ago

You might want to recommend forks of Firefox too. Part of the reason Chrome/Chromium is dominant is because of its forks, and a fork of Firefox might appeal to someone more than the main browser. I use Pulse, but Waterfox is also solid from what I've heard.

[-] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

I mean that’s all I can really do.

Unfortunately when my bank or other critical institution rejects Firefox for failure to use attestation, I can't even do that. I'll be forced to use Chrome. Firefox would have to adopt WEI to remain compatible. In that case I can use Firefox, but it would be the same as using Chrome.

I'd say the monopoly Google has with Chrome is way more threatening than in the early 2000's with MS and IE. That threat resulted in an anti-trust lawsuit, but not a peep from any government about the destruction Google is doing.

[-] Contravariant@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Not much you can do about institutions you have no control over, but surely you could go to a different bank?

Assuming there is a bank that doesn't use this of course.

[-] honk@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

I‘m old so i actually remember this but I‘m old so my memory might be shit but wasn‘t the lawsuit about the fact that microsoft shipped IE wirth windows as a default browser and not about it being too dominant?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd say the monopoly Google has with Chrome is way more threatening than in the early 2000's with MS and IE. That threat resulted in an anti-trust lawsuit, but not a peep from any government about the destruction Google is doing.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I don't even know that eu cares. Google is as evil as everyone feared if not worse. Apple is pretty bad too, not even allowing any browser but their own on mobile. People don't realize it, but browser choice is actually a huge deal when it comes to causing damage to society (or protecting it)

[-] krash@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I know I'm just dreaming, but I really like the Gemini protocol and hope it'll grow and develop more. It doesn't have everything, but it's very close to the "old web'.

[-] appel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Is Brave safe from these shenanigans? Asking for a friend.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

Brave is built on Chromium. So, by default, no they are not safe from this. Without extra effort, Brave will have this feature. I don't know if its feasible but there's a chance the Brave devs can remove the code from their distribution, but that's the best case scenario and just puts them in the same position as Firefox: they get locked out because they refuse to implement the spec.

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I have to imagine they will strip it because if they don't, it'll be dead to all of their users.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

It may be dead to its users anyway depending on how forceful Google is with this. If Brave doesn't work on 98.8% of all websites with advertising or indeed on 49.5% of all websites (approximately Google's ad network's reach), it becomes as niche as lynx.

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah Brave would probably be fucked then. If you can't have privacy anyway, might as well use Chrome.

[-] honk@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

No brave users don‘t care. Brave proved how untrustworthy they are and in any case their business model is unethical yet they still have a cult like following plus a group of crypto bros that are obsessed with getting digital pennies.

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm a Brave user that certainly cares. They're not untrustworthy.

[-] Gerudo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Brave devs have stated that their fork of chromium is essentially degoogled, detracked,etc. Just the browser core and built from there.. They don't automatically add in new features into their fork just because chromium does.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I see, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure about the specifics of how they produce their product from the upstream source.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Brave is a re-skin of Chromium.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
974 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

34438 readers
176 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS