You do not and you cannot. It was written in stone once Chrome dominated the browser market. What Chrome (Google) wants, Chrome (Google) gets. Despite all the good engineering Google wants to sell ads, that's all there is to it. And the result is this proposal.
> The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.
It's irrelevant and we are an irrelevant minority. Unless people switch to FF in droves the web is Chrome. And they won't because at the end of the day people just want to get home from their shitty jobs and stream a show. As long as that works everything else is a non-issue.
If you do eventually run into a poorly crafted webpage that doesn't work on Firefox you have the wherewithal to decide if you are simply not going to use that site or hop over to chrome just this once.
But the important thing is checking in automatically as a Firefox user in the logs of every other site online. Push Firefox marketshare up and at least some places will be hesitant to write off Firefox as irrelevant.
That would accomplish nothing.
> But the important thing is checking in automatically as a Firefox user in the logs of every other site online.
No, that's not important. HN users are a tiny minority compared to the billions of people that use the web daily.
I'm sorry, there's no easy way to say this: Firefox is never coming back. The web of old is never coming back. It's over. Even if this particular proposal gets defeated somehow, a future similar proposal will make it through. There is nothing you or I can do about it. Google is more powerful than most governments, and they are vastly more powerful than any random group of like-minded people who get together on the Internet in the belief that they can accomplish something.
Firefox came into the mainstream because of power-user recommendations and the browser ballots.
It should be illegal for a significan platform (say 10mln users) to make its own browser, or any really, the unquestioned default. Users should be prompted on first use, giving a randomly ordered selection of any capable browser. If users can just click through it the choice should be random.
This is the only way to maintain healthy competition and ensure independent yet functional standards. Otherwise incentives will continue to centralize power.
See that's where I disagree. Rich governments like the EU or the US can and do have power to push regulations if they wanted to. Pretending we the people (in a broad sense), i.e. the state, have no power whatsoever to control the terms under which these companies operate within the state, is defeatist.
Sadly, Chrome is substantially more secure than Firefox.
The only way in which Chrome is more secure at anything appears to be securely forcing you to view ads via this API. And a shocking amount of malware fails to work when you use a running environment that 95% of society are not using.
You are far safer on Firefox than Chrome.
Heh. I was there when it was IE6, and people said the same.
Just doing some quick searching - the first numbers that come up when you search for "how many people used the internet in the year 2000" are on the order of 350 million or so. Comparatively, now, in 2023, Reddit alone has some 450 million users. It would seem right now that Tiktok has about three times the number of active users than there were total Internet users 23 years ago.
Additionally, there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars now resting on Chrome remaining the dominant browser.
Short of government intervention (or absolutely monumental fuckup on Google's part somehow), Chrome is here to stay.
We are the people with the most influence on the tech. We are prescriptors. We are legion.
– Yes but Chrome is a tad faster and I have my bookmarks and my favorites extension and blablablabla…
— Then you are the root cause of the problem. If you are not ready to sacrifice an ounce of comfort to save the web, then you are the one killing the web.
Simple: install Firefox. Now.
(oh, and, by the way, also removes google analytics and all google trackers from the websites under your control. That’s surprizingly easy to do and a huge blow in Google monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives)
The problem is that the web standards have now grown so much that it is impossible to write a complete new web browser from scratch. Firefox is not coming back, because Mozilla seems to prioritize other things than code quality and the actual usability of their software.
And yes, I know that the SerenityOS developers are trying to do it, but while some very advanced things work "good enough" in their browser so that Twitter and Discord's web client works to some extent, the more basic things are so broken that their browser cannot even render basic HTML 3.2 sites properly.
Google's end goal is probably to "deprecate" HTTP 1.x and force everyone into using their own replacement for the protocol. Their protocol is going to be like the thing they call "HTTP2", an insanely complex protocol that is impossible to implement by a small developer team. In the end their own protocol becomes a "rolling release" protocol that only works with Google's own app, at which point they can completely stop releasing RFCs for it.
But it still happened, against M$, who was the behemoth of the time, so things are never impossible.
For the uninitiated: Germany's mobile phone network has been ridiculously expensive and unreliable for decades. Everyone else in Europe has done it better, because no one else thought they could extort 60 billion euros from the providers for RF spectrum licenses - we're still paying for that blatant debt-shifting today.
There's a degree of saying no and opting out and controlling your own shit that you can do.
Some, like owning a phone and getting tracked to many degrees is inevitable but others, like software on a computer, is quite easy to think about.
You don't need to be a majority to go a different path. Linux users everywhere know this. We never needed the "year of the Linux desktop".
There's usually ways around the designated box. Obviously, get ready to be called names for not bowing down to authority... But you can ignore them and move on.
There's no reason why the same can't happen here. The defeatism attitude helps with nothing and is part of the reason why this happens in the first place.
https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/how-to-bypass-website-captc...
They considered it enough that Apple had a monopoly on distribution for apps for a device with ~50% marketshare in the US, and even less in Europe.
Imagine what they would do for something that has ~97%
It is not like you'll be loosing much. This is the time to change, while we still have other players in the market.
The point is that if chrome implements this, netflix, amazon, facebook etc might decide they'll use this feature and only permit browsers who implement this to use this site.
Even if the only browser that does so is chrome, that's fine because chrome's market share is big enough that they can ignore the rest.
Have fun using Firefox if half of the web locks you out or treats you like a second class citizen.
What, you think taking down the ad industry on the web is going to be painless?
Is this supposed to be a bad thing? It's almost made to sound like surviving without them would be tantamount to starving, but frankly we might be better served without them.
we as tech early adopters and "leaders" in this space, we need to be telling family and friends to complain to those sites about such required support. If enough people complain to amazon that they don't want to use this google branded browser, i think there will be some pushback and the companies would be hesitant to drop support for firefox.
Works for me. I don't need those sites/services. If they want to be actively hostile to me, I can vote with my feet/wallet.
I can't (nor do I wish to) control what other people do. Just what I do.
As it stands now, I block the bulk of scripts/ads/trackers/other spyware on my devices, and those who don't like that are free to block me from accessing their sites.
Maybe I'm missing something important here, but I don't need anything from Alphabet, Netflix, Meta or any other rapacious corporation. They can do what they like, and I will do the same.
>Have fun using Firefox if half of the web locks you out or treats you like a second class citizen.
If the above folks are who you consider "half the web" then, at least for me, nothing of value would be lost, as I don't use that garbage anyway.
OAuth sites will let you change your OAuth provider or even better switch to a local account on their site and use a password manager so you don't tie everything to an OAuth provider unless the site will accept a self hosted one.
I suppose Apple may object on the grounds of being a "privacy focused" company, but I'll believe that when I see it. I'm not gonna sit here holding my breath for these megacorps to do the right thing.
You are probably right, but there is one self-interested reason why Apple might resist implementing this - Apple doesn’t like the web competing with apps, and this is basically giving the web a capability that right now only apps (effectively) have.
True. Try to screenshot anything from Apple TV+ content. You'll get a black image.
For example, they threaten to remove FaceTime and iMessage from UK iPhones if the government there changes the law on encryption [1].
[1]: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/07/20/apple-threatens-to-pull...
You only have to look at how they're (still) restricting PWAs to see they also have their own goals to preserve their walled garden and market share (as they should, it's a publicly listed company, but it's not the same as an open source alternative)
I'm aware Apple implemented similar tech a while ago, but I have infinitely less confidence that Google would use it responsibly.
And lot of people here squeal like stuck pigs if you suggest anything other than the Chrome monopoly. HM is a constant barrage of demanding that legislators force the Chrome monopoly to be extended to iOS devices!
