Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain? • Hacker News Board

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#151

Post by JoshMnem » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #147

JoshMnem wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is a quality alternative to Facebook? Independent forums and self-hosted blogging. They are about content and real connections with like-minded people. Instead of mindlessly posting little updates throughout the day just for the sake of posting updates, people should save it for when they actually have something to say. In general: read books not timelines.

Forums and blogging are for internet strangers; Facebook is for your real-life community. While you of course accept some risk of Facebook content becoming accidentally public, there is little to no intersection between the content I would intentionally share on Facebook vs. HN or a blog. At minimum, blogging would need a universal federated identity system with reciprocal ACLs, which is already starting to sound a l…

For people who grew up before the Internet, the idea of needing to share everything with everyone you know isn't a necessity. Some things were better before the Internet. My real-world social life improved after I left Facebook. The quality of the information that enters my mind on a daily basis also improved. I don't read timelines or experience life by constantly thinking about whether I should post the current moment online. There are other ways to stay in touch with people.

I recommend Digital Minimalism.

http://www.calnewport.com/books/digital-minimalism/

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#152

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #149

Dylan16807 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I'm not sure what your argument is. When the problem is "they refuse to issue Widevine licenses", it doesn't really matter that a browser as huge as Firefox managed to get one. It wasn't "if you want to use Linux", it was "if you want to make a browser". Also the Widevine authorized for Linux is only 720p on Netflix.

The point is you don't need to worry about a browser playing DRM because most platforms have native apps for the only uses a browser needs DRM for...

Okay, but I'm not sure how well I can reconcile "you don't need it in the browser at all" and "it was considered important to force it into a browser standard".

Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

#153

Post by ajxs » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 11:09 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #145

ajxs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately keeping modern software secure is a full-time job. Internet browsers are just one giant attack surface. This is especially complicated by the speed at which the implementation of new features is required to keep a general audience interested. Unfortunately, a user like my mother wouldn't care how ideologically well-meaning a browser was if she couldn't use it for watching online media. I recently went l…

> This is especially complicated by the speed at which the implementation of new features is required to keep a general audience interested. That may have been true 10 years ago, but now the feature set is so rich, that any new ones are really solutions in search of a problem rather than an actual user need. The average customer is pretty much using what Google dictates to get to the internet (used to be MS) Nothing…

I'm very sympathetic to your overall sentiment regarding utility of many of the new features. My point remains however, that even addressing the current feature set is monumental enough of a task. The Javascript standard has become complex enough to implement and maintain from a functionality point of view, let alone keeping it secure.