Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#91

Post by smoldesu »

happytiger wrote: post #55

The faster we can build usable decentralized apps and get users onto them, the better. It should only lend urgency to leave the “old web” for those of us who are builders, makers and evangelizers. They’re after encryption, they’re attacking anonymity, they want all of finance for themselves, and they want to kill privacy too -- I for one say NO thank you. There is a level — almost a treble —- in these comments on how…

> in these comments on how “it’s inevitable” or “already cooked” but only if you see these fights in isolation.

It is, in fact, over.

Commodity hardware has no "escape hatch" anymore. If you want to, say, implement custom encryption or ensure anonymity/financial independence for yourself, you cannot stop the Powers That Be. You are helpless to resist Apple or Google or Microsoft if they tell you "no".

The fight was lost when we decided that we didn't need computing rights. The rest, as they say, is history.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#92

Post by mrguyorama »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #64
Melatonic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly modern Firefox works better than Chrome for me at everything - better memory management - faster loading times - better extension support.

There is only one set of site where Chrome performs better than Firefox: sites made by Google. I can't help but assume that it's intentional. Unfortunately, for many people those are very important sites. The Internet desperately needs some government to step in and force Google to spin off Chrome as an independent company. It's the only hope we have of stopping Google from completely ruining the Internet.

And yet, despite being widely understood as purposely handicapped on non-chrome browsers by using a specific, internal library that is especially optimized inside the V8 javascript engine, Youtube works just fine on Firefox.

There is no "it's slow" excuse to not use firefox. Even if it took a full second longer per page load, WHICH IT EMPIRICALLY DOES NOT, that would still be an acceptable price to pay to not HELP ONE MEGACORP LITERALLY HAVE FINAL SAY OVER ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#93

Post by mrguyorama »

Incipient wrote: post #77
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only one set of site where Chrome performs better than Firefox: sites made by Google. I can't help but assume that it's intentional. Unfortunately, for many people those are very important sites. The Internet desperately needs some government to step in and force Google to spin off Chrome as an independent company. It's the only hope we have of stopping Google from completely ruining the Internet.

In this era we need to move to the idea of "effective monopolies". Just because Chrome isn't an absolute monopoly, doesn't mean it can't essentially dictate whatever direction it wants in a mostly unchecked manner.

Even American "monopoly" legislation, and our horrible "only care about the consumer" opinion on monopolies has ALWAYS supported breaking up companies that don't have 100% of the industry because they do anti-consumer shit with whatever percentage control they have.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#94

Post by mrguyorama »

sedatk wrote: post #45
Melatonic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly modern Firefox works better than Chrome for me at everything - better memory management - faster loading times - better extension support.

Firefox is great but I can't make it my daily driver because of two issues: - Terrible font kerning on canvas (Google Docs, Spreadsheets) (probably a decade old bug) - Doesn't sync icons in favorites bar (which I use without accompanying text, so, big deal)

So, having slightly harder to read fonts, and the wrong favicons, is enough to help google own the web.

Jeeze. C'mon, this is exactly what I'm bitching about. How horrific would Google have to be in their position of power over the web before you finally are willing to suffer even a minimal drawback to prevent it?

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#95

Post by mrguyorama »

antisthenes wrote: post #69
JeremyNT wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, this is what it looks like if/when we've fully lost the fight. Those of us who currently recommend Firefox are hoping that there's still enough time to do something about this. Maybe it's already too late, but you might as well try, you know?

Firefox is The fight was lost long ago, several times (once when they decided to throw out thousands of developer work years by gimping all the addons)

My entire point is that firefox is as 2% because all of us petty and pathetic individuals are unwilling to do even the littleist thing to make the world a better place at our own expense.

Using a slightly worse (and I argue it isn't even) web browser won't kill you, yet everyone on here has excuse after excuse to continue to help google have control over the entire internet.

Pathetic.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#96

Post by mrd3v0 »

gmerc wrote: post #85
mrd3v0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Mozilla is a political organisation and Brave, the very same organisation that hires a fired Mozilla CEO that publicly opposes same-sex marriage, is not a political organisation? Cool.

Every corporation is political. To pretend otherwise is … American.

Agreed. Just perplexed by the double standards.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#97

Post by sedatk »

mrguyorama wrote: post #94
sedatk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is great but I can't make it my daily driver because of two issues: - Terrible font kerning on canvas (Google Docs, Spreadsheets) (probably a decade old bug) - Doesn't sync icons in favorites bar (which I use without accompanying text, so, big deal)

So, having slightly harder to read fonts, and the wrong favicons, is enough to help google own the web. Jeeze. C'mon, this is exactly what I'm bitching about. How horrific would Google have to be in their position of power over the web before you finally are willing to suffer even a minimal drawback to prevent it?

Yes, and maybe, there's a lesson for you to take from this: such small things may accumulate into world overlordship of an evil corporation. Do you remember how Google Chrome gained marketshare over Internet Explorer? It was all minor annoyances with IE like slow startup, a single page crashing the whole browser, unmovable tabs, big download windows, having multiple search bars. That was it[1]! Chrome never promised "an entirely new web experience", but fixed all the minor annoyances that had lingered during IE's dominance and never been fixed.

So, guilt-tripping users into using Firefox is a terrible idea, and might actually backfire. This is an institutional crisis we've been experiencing by both Firefox and Google making bad product management decisions. Firefox has come a long way, and I applaud it for it, but it's not my fault that Firefox has been so behind in the race. Keep blaming people as much as you want, that's the truth.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080903104921/http://www.google...

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#98

Post by BrendanEich »

benatkin wrote: post #32
theandrewbailey wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are a fork, have been all along" https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1684561924191842304

> the “reskinned” claim is complete nonsense With me that's a straw man, I haven't been using the word "reskinned". The way he mentions Chromium proves my point that it's a distribution of Chromium. Chrome is a browser because Google has Chromium, and they've chosen Chrome as the name for their distribution of Chromium. But it is also a distribution of Chromium.

I wasn't talking to you when I used "reskinned". Diatomaceous_ooze used "skinned", so unless you are they, why are you replying here? If you are ooze, quibbling over my adding "re-" won't get you far.

"Chromium" is not a distributable binary blob, so you're wrong in your essential claim. We don't distribute the same Chromium bits in Brave as Google does in Chrome. Chromium is open source software. We disable and nullify a lot, as the first document linked in my tweet details:

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1684561924191842304

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#99

Post by BrendanEich »

saurik wrote: post #57
mminer237 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking Brave's ads is literally three clicks. I don't care if I don't get paid if I block ads. What I don't want is to lose the ability to block ads or to allow websites to block me for using an unapproved system. Google seems to be working for both of those things while I don't see any chance Brave ever allows either.

You don't care... but Brave cares . The point here is that Brave has been talking up the same user-hostile tech for the same user-hostile reason: to prevent "ad fraud", as they are an ad company, like it or not. ...and, frankly, Brave isn't going to have any choice in implementing Google's plot: the web simply isn't going to work in Brave anymore if they don't, as web pages will just start refusing to give Brave any…

"Men can always be blind to a thing so long as it is big enough." - GKC

We want our SDK (if we manage to build it) by which revenue share is distributed to be tamperproof and used by humans. You don't like this, turn off the BAT support in the SDK-using app, or use a different app.

Contrast this with Google WEI, which proposes that web pages (esp. the big ones, including Google's) can do this to all browser users, who get zero revshare, just battery draining ad-tech requests and malvertising risk.

See the difference? I have said openly that I'm a fan of Secure Remote Attestation but it has to be opt-in and user-first. WEI as a tool for Chrome supremacy on the browser side and Google on the ad-tech side is pretty much the opposite.

Re: “Web Environment Integrity”: Locking Down the Web

#100

Post by postalrat »

gabrielsroka wrote: post #86
postalrat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BAT thing is the cryptocurrency. No thanks.

I said that, but you can disable it. Can you explain your comment? Is it forcing me to use crypto and I'm not aware of it? Am I mining?

I'm not interested in handing over my privacy to a company seeking out creative sources of revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_m...

Post reply on HN