[p-e-w]

> We could at least get everyone here to use Firefox.

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.

[Tanoc]

A defeatist attitude like this certainly predicts the future... If you're playing by the rules. And the rules were set by Google, so it's in your best interest to break them by actively harming Google. Restrictions in choice happen because people don't oppose the narrowing enough to make the corporations lose money. This might be one of the few times where targeted malware could be beneficial if it destroys Google's services and makes them too much of a risk to use. If somebody puts a latent trigger into a Javascript library that's widely used like Node.js that makes Chromium and only Chromium break then that would start a cascade effect of Chromium locking itself up more and more until it's impossible to use. You could even make cookie bombs, where you have two cookies, and when one expires before the other it triggers the surviving poisoned cookie to ruin Chrome's functionality by poisoning the browser agent. Google wouldn't be able to trust anything they didn't make themselves. You can force Google to barricade themselves in until it's impossible to reach them, and have them do it so fast that updating systems for developers and users would be too much of a pain to constantly keep up with. The downside is once you use a tactic like this then it's not just Google that wouldn't trust anything they didn't make themselves.

[paulryanrogers]

> That would accomplish nothing.

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.

[willywanker]

You're describing the old Firefox before they became Google's controlled opposition. Since 2011 all they have done is continuously stripped out every useful power user feature in a bid to turn into a shitty copy of Chrome; the last straw was gutting their powerful XUL/XPCOM extension system in favor of Chrome's far limited web extensions because muh security (and since then there's been more, not less cross browser malware). Today you can't even write your own extension for use on the main build thanks to forced extension signing (which ended up disabling everyone's extensions a few years ago due to an invalid certificate). And that's before all their unethical tracking, in browser advertising and privacy violation over the years, that requires various 'hardening' about:config changes out of the box, or the erosion of configurable features with almost every release. Mozilla are woke hypocrites today, financially dependent on Google while claiming to be privacy champions and squandering their money on multiple other projects instead of focusing on Firefox. The only browser that continues to be the old Firefox in spirit - the one that upended Microsoft's IE monopoly - is its hard fork, Pale Moon (which gets derided as oLd aNd iNSeCuRe by Mozilla fanboys). Doesn't need any 'hardening' because it doesn't snoop on you to begin with, and the latest versions have massively improved web compatibility while retaining support for the original powerful XUL extension system.

[paulryanrogers]

My point wasn't to gush praise on Firefox here, rather to point out that we need browser ballots again -- and permanently.

Otherwise Palemoon is as doomed to obscurity as Firefox, if not moreso.

[willywanker]

It may well be too late, given Google has absolute control over web standards and their policy of introducing draft features in Chrome and then making them part of the standard. Unless an anti-trust case is brought against them which explicitly mentions their browser engine and standards monopoly, and correctly points out that every other browser today is just a skin around Chrome while Firefox is controlled opposition. Every case against them seems to obsess on the search engine monopoly.

[Square547]

>Firefox came into the mainstream because of power-user recommendations and the browser ballots.

But it was a completely different situation.

- There was a huge influx of new internet users who were all asking their techy friends which browser to use. This is not the case now. People mostly stick with what they know.

- FF was the better product for pretty much all use cases. If this proposal does go through, this will not be the case. It's nice that FF can block ads, but it's ultimately useless if the average user won't be able to access Netflix/Youtube/Facebook/their bank account. It will be an objectively worse browser.

[paulryanrogers]

Browsers are increasing in importance even today, not decreasing.

And as I said, the sustainable solution is browser ballots back by the force of law. It's worked where it's been tried.

Anti-trust based solely on narrow definitions of consumer harm on the other hand, serve only the capital owners. And they'll leverage and co-opt any and every popular and useful innovation: open source, community contributions, open standards, patterns light or dark, etc.

[andrepd]

>Google is more powerful than most governments

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.

[MrYellowP]

Bringing up "We, the people" here is ridiculous, regardless of the "sense". We have zero power. Zero. Protests, revolts, riots ... all make no difference anymore and making a cross on a piece of paper once every couple years, aka voting, doesn't give us power. Anyone believing that is a fool.

[michaelmrose]

It certainly allows us to avoid the worst of 2 evils in any case and nudge the ship of state away from obvious rocks where extremist positions cause politicians to lose elections. Furthermore many states have a means for individuals to directly make law on matters that directly concern enough sufficient voters.

[krzmaciek]

Sounds like defeatism. By writing such comments you only help Google and make people resign from doing anything. Good job... It won't be easy, but it is not impossible to change the world. There are many, many intelligent people around. We just need to work together to achieve our goals. BTW EU has shown, multiple times, that it is powerful enough to impose regulations on tech giants like Google, Facebook or Apple.

[iddan]

Google is not stronger than the EU.

[PontifexMinimus]

This presumes that the EU

(1) Understands what this is about

(2) cares about its citizens' freedom

(3) has enough coherence to actually do something about it

It's not obvious to me that any of these apply. The EU is pushing -- in fits and starts -- towards self-reliance in its computing infrastructure, but at a slow pace.

[netbeethoven]

Of these, number 1 is probably the most doubtful. The EU, however boring that line of thinking is, is still quite bureaucratic, and it's doubtful that measures to control this, might not be a priority of bureaucrats. After all, the regs I mention later are in the name of "less e-waste" (which is good, but besides the point). So something like "control web DRM" might not be as blatant and easily solved (your point No.3).

For number 2, the EU's new regulations above more easily replacable batteries, mandatory USB-C ports and such, in my eyes prove -- though not doubtlessly -- that they do care about walled gardens in tech.

Number 3 though, again, as I've alluded to before, doubtful. But possible in my eyes. Urgency is another thing you've mentioned, and -- let's say it again -- bureaucrats are not particularly known for solving a problem in the right time.

NB: don't misenterpret my use of 'bureaucrat[ic]' as a negative comment, it is just a fact, however boring.

[joaommartins]

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. Google is not more important than most states, you underestimate the scale and power of states.