MARK SURMAN, PRESIDENT, MOZILLA Keeping the internet, and the content that makes it a vital and vibrant part of our global society, free and accessible has

  • nxn@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    To keep a modicum of privacy and openness, the web is de-facto dependent on Firefox continuing to exist in the medium term. And it has to be paid for somehow.

    The web today has no privacy or openness. It has gmail accounts, russian propaganda bots, and AI SEO article spam. Does it matter which rose tinted browser you care to view or interact with this shit through? I’m approaching 40 and the web has been a fundamental part of my life to the point that I am sometimes bewildered about what I’d do without it. It is a sinking ship though, and at this point I’m much more interested in seeing alternatives to HTTP rather than trying to save the mess we built on-top of it.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This analysis strikes me as a nice mix of cynicism and revolutionary thinking. In my own analysis of history, cynicism has never achieved anything except worsen what it claims to hate. As for revolutions, they mostly never even happen, and when they do happen they achieve nothing except heartache and backlash. The only way forward that actually works is slowly, one step at a time, building on what you have.

      • nxn@biglemmowski.win
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Ok, let’s try to narrow this down so our exchanges aren’t vague. To me going from propellers to jet engines would have been “revolutionary”, but to you it may have just been incrementally expanding on the concept of a wing that keeps aircraft afloat.

        So for clarity, I’m not suggesting a complete replacement to HTTP. I don’t envision a world where the web as we know gets fully “replaced”. But, I do think that it has out lived its purpose and ultimately we should be seeking a better protocol for information exchange. Or, in other words, I don’t think formulating a solution that can provide privacy, integrity, etc should be restricted to being built on HTTP just because that is what the “web” is today.

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Fair points. Talking of revolution was indeed a bit vague.

          Perhaps I am just more conservative in temperament. I focus on the value in keeping things and improving them. Software lends itself to iterative development where the result can still end up being revolutionary. So my intuition is that if there’s a problem with HTTP then let’s solve that problem rather than throwing the whole thing out and losing all its accrued value. In this case 3 decades of web archives and the skills capital of all the people who make it work.

          Sure, HTTP is suboptimal, and as a sometime web developer I can see that HTML is verbose and ugly and was only chosen because XML was fashionable back then. Even the domain name system suffers from original sin: the TLDs should come first, not last!

          Human culture is messy. Throwing things out is risky and even reckless given that the alternative is all but certain not to work out as imagined. Much safer to build upon and improve things than to destroy them.