Quoting an anonymous Twitter user (got harrassed for these statements):

"Safari is buggy" is a valid criticism.

"Safari is behind Chrome in features" is not a valid criticism.

Never forget that the browser vendors, including Google and Apple, seized control of the web from the W3C. These few companies have too much power over the web, period.

1/8

The web has massive feature bloat. It's a privacy and security nightmare.

I personally think we should abolish JavaScript and not allow arbitrary remotely loaded code to execute on our computers.

"I want web sites to do everything a native app can do" is a suicidal mistake.

2/8

The more features that are added to the web, the less browser competition is possible! This is essential to recognize.

And Google knows it! That's the whole point.

Who can keep up with Google? Mozilla can't. Apple can't. Even Microsoft threw in the towel and adopted Chromium.

3/8

Imagine a small company trying to write their own web browser from scratch nowadays. It's just not possible! The web is so complex, there's no choice but to adopt one of the few existing browser engines: Chromium, WebKit, Gecko. That's it. The competitive landscape is bleak.

4/8

"Everyone has to adopt Chromium" is exactly Google's plan.

Who controls the dominant browser engine controls the web.

5/8

In a sense, there's no point in even having "web standards" anymore.

Web standards theoretically allow *anybody* to implement a browser engine. But if the "standards" are sufficiently huge, then practically *nobody* can implement a browser engine.

6/8

@alcinnz Even in such a world, there's still a point to them: having a well-written description of semantics you can _expect_ from a browser (does not necessarily mean that you'll get them, but it's easy to argue that something is a bug when it contravenes the specification that it is supposed to implement).

Follow

@robryk @alcinnz don’t confuse standards with the documentation of them. Standards are (or at least are supposed to be) much more than just the documents that explain them: they’re supposed to represent a consensus vision of stakeholders. When they don’t do that, they are badly broken

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Infosec Exchange

A Mastodon instance for info/cyber security-minded people.