[93po]

When I see "reps from every browser agree" my bullshit alarm immediately goes off. Does it include unanimous support from browser projects that are either:

1. not trillion dollar tech companies

or

2. not 99% funded from a trillion dollar tech company.

I have long suspected that Google gives so much money to Mozilla both for the default search option, but also for massive indirect control to deliberately cripple Mozilla in insidious ways to massively reduce Firefox's marketshare. And I have long predicted that Google is going to make the rate of change needed in web standards so high that orgs like Mozilla can't keep up and then implode/become unusable.

[nobleach]

Well, every browser engine that is part of WHATWG. That's how working groups... work. The current crop of "not Chrome/Firefox/Webkit" aren't typically building their own browser engines though. They're re-skinning Chromium/Gecko/Webkit.

[NoGravitas]

The reckless, infinite scope of web browsers https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....

[JimDabell]

It’s worth noting that since that article was written, the Ladybird browser has made a lot of progress with their new browser engine.

https://ladybird.org

[mr_toad]

> Does it include unanimous support from browser projects

They could continue supporting XSLT if they wanted.

[spankalee]

This makes the job of smaller engines like Servo and Ladybird a lot easier.

[kg]

It's not a huge conspiracy, but it is worthwhile to consider what the incentives are for people from each browser vendor. In practice all the vendors probably have big backlogs of work they are struggling to keep up with. The backlogs are accumulating in part because of the breakneck pace at which new APIs and features are added to the web platform, and in part because of the unending torrent of new security vulnerabilities being discovered in existing parts of the platform. Anything that reduces the backlog is thus really appealing, and money doesn't have to change hands.

Arguably, we could lighten the load on all three teams (especially the under-resourced Firefox and Safari teams) by slowing the pace of new APIs and platform features. This would also ease development of browsers by new teams, like Servo or Ladybird. But this seems to be an unpopular stance because people really (for good reason) want the web platform to have every pet feature they're an advocate for. Most people don't have the perspective necessary to see why a slower pace may be necessary.

[dralley]

>I have long suspected that Google gives so much money to Mozilla both for the default search option, but also for massive indirect control to deliberately cripple Mozilla in insidious ways to massively reduce Firefox's marketshare.

This has never ever made sense because Mozilla is not at all afraid to piss in Google's cheerios at the standards meetings. How many different variations of Flock and similar adtech oriented features did they shoot down? It's gotta be at least 3. Not to mention the anti-fingerprinting tech that's available in Firefox (not by default because it breaks several websites) and opposition to several Google-proposed APIs on grounds of fingerprinting. And keeping Manifest V2 around indefinitely for the adblockers.

People just want a conspiracy, even when no observed evidence actually supports it.

>And I have long predicted that Google is going to make the rate of change needed in web standards so high that orgs like Mozilla can't keep up and then implode/become unusable.

That's basically true whether incidentally or on purpose.

[93po]

Controlled opposition is absolutely a thing, and to think that people at trillion dollar companies wouldn't do this is naive. I'm not claiming for a fact that mozilla is controlled opposition, i'm just saying it's very feasible that it could be, and i look for signs of it.

You give examples of things they disagree on, and i wouldn't refute that. However i would say that google is going to pick and choose their battles, because ultimately things they appear to "lose on" sort of don't matter. fingerprinting is a great example - yes, firefox provides it, but it's still largely pretty useless, and its impact is even more meaningless because so few people use it. if you have javascript on and arent using a VPN, chances are your anti-fingerprinting isn't actually doing much other than annoying you and breaking sites.

the only real thing to be used for near-complete-anonymity is Tor, but only when it's also used in the right way, and when JavaScript is also turned off. And even then there are ways it could and probably has failed.