845
Mozilla opposes Web Integrity API proposal (github.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M] to c/degoogle@lemmy.ml
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Mozilla's position on WEI is pretty solid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 97 points 3 years ago (15 children)

Mozilla try not to be based challenge (impossible)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] 30 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 24 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    They have already opposed it, and your speculation based on your dislike of their CEO probably isn't helpful. It's against the open web and Mozilla has no incentive to implement this. It's something only an ad company would be keen on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 9 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Right now they make money from google for default search because they pay the most. Previously they went Yahoo and could go bing. They did not implement web manifest v3, so you're insinuation isn't based in fact. Plus, this has nothing to do with search, it is to do with after search when on a website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I don't think MS implemented it. It's chromium, they just took the code base. Some browsers actively removed it, but when you're based on chromium, you start with the code that google gives you.

    MS taking a codebase and doing nothing with it logically makes no sense to imply that Firefox will purposely resource and write code contrary to web freedoms.

    Whether they implement in web search is speculation, they'd be purposefully downranking companies in search for not implementing something that cost them revenue excluding their customers. It would be google vs companies, and it wouldn't be pretty.

    Either way, state your position. Are you suggesting people should roll over and take it, or move to Firefox, because all this side debate is doing nothing useful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I use waterfox currently. If this takes off, I will browser shop until I find a browser that doesn't implement it. If i come across any sites that don't work, well, I just won't use their sites anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Although a comment close below puts a little dent into that ^^

    https://github.com/mozilla/> standards-positions/issues/852#issuecomment-1649928726

    I guess, even if "it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.", it might happen just like the past:

    https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ Formal objection: FLOSS and EME w3c/encrypted-media#378 https://daniele.tech/2014/05/firefox-drm-and-w3c-eme-complicated-technical-matter/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think Firefox's position is unreasonable here. Ultimately, the old way of distributing copy-write content wasn't going to work. Companies that had right to something, couldn't easily distribute it without a large risk of piracy and a tanking of revenues. Having a sandbox around proprietary shite made sense and protected users privacy while also enabling the content providers to maintain their asset.

    Removing ad blocks is a wholly different ball game. Google obviously has a stake in it because YT is funded by ads. Maybe some ad driven content providers also, but subscription driven services don't have the same need for that. It does seem an unholy alliance between content providers and big tech has been formed and it could be something at play again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •