zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
Mozilla should call for Google's removal from the W3C over this implementation of Web Environment Integrity. "But Chrome has 65% market share, what good is the W3C without them?” If Google can take unilateral action to fundamentally change the basic principles of the web, then the W3C is already useless. This will give Google a clear choice: if they want to maintain the idea that the W3C matters, they should withdraw this implementation.

It is unbelievable that over the course of 3 days, the potential future of the web has been put in such dire straits. There's already an existing, far less troubling (while still bad), proposal in the form of Private Access Tokens going through a standards committee that Google chose to ignore. They presented this proposal in the shadiest way possible through a personal GitHub account. They immediately shut down outside contribution and comments. And despite the blowback they are already shoving a full implementation into Chromium.

What we need is real action, and this is the role Mozilla has always presented itself as serving. A "true" disinterested defender of the ideals of the web. Now is the time to prove it. Simply opposing this proposal isn't enough. This is about as clear and basic an attack on what fundamentally differentiates the web from every walled garden as possible. If someone drafted a proposal to the W3C that stated that only existing browsers should be allowed to render web pages, the correct response would not be to "take the stance that you oppose that proposal," it would be to seriously question whether the submitting party should even participate in the group. Make no mistake, that is what is happening now.

>>tolmas+We
It's far, far too late for this. The W3C is already irrelevant, not that it ever mattered much.

The internet is made by big companies. Not standards bodies. The WHATWG has the actual living standards, and Google, Apple, Cloudflare and Amazon make the actual software. Nobody cares about the W3C. And Mozilla is long past dead.

>>solard+ai1
> And Mozilla is long past dead.

Mozilla is far from healthy but calling it dead is overstating things.

>>matkon+zj1
Less than 5% of global usage [1], and no presence whatsoever on mobile. Pretty much dead.

[1]: https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage And CF stats doesn't depend on JavaScript.

>>slig+3n1
4% of global browser usage can be described in many ways (defeated, miserable, collapse compared to the past etc) but it definitely is not dead and is one of few developed browsers.

>>matkon+oo1
If we're arguing about whether 4% global usage constitutes dead, then yes, it's truly dead and Mozilla is completely irrelevant. Even Microsoft is more important these days (again).

>>solard+nq1
The difference between 0% and 5% is that at 0%, if you want an alternative, you have to write it yourself, but at 5%, the alternative exists. Mozilla is not dead.

If you don’t like what Google is doing, don’t pretend that Firefox does not exist. Do something instead. File bug reports, send patches, donate to those who are working on Firefox and countering Google.

>>nequo+Ot1
Frankly I trust Mozilla's governance even less than Google's. They took an amazing product (Phoenix) and mismanaged it into irrelevance.

If there were a good browser run by a different nonprofit org, I would support that.