this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2022
102 points (99.0% liked)
Firefox
18515 readers
16 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know people that worked on golang and chromium outside of google and then tell me how difficult it is working on it because Google has final decision making power on those projects even though they're open source.
They have a higher voice but you, if you want to still can reject their decision. The drama about manifestv3 was also more echo chamber, vivaldi, brave and others ditched it so adblockers still work. Yet no one has, as of a today a solution. People only come up with, remove ads ... end. This is not what developers or content creators want, they want practical solution without compromising something and ads is simply reliable system. There are also other things that play a role for such decisions, malware etc. Points that some people just ignore. Most people see it from their own perspective and not from developer or content creator perspective. I do not need it or want it ... okay f# it its bloatware or shit ... this is basically how every discussion is about it.
If you pay for development you of course should automatically get a higher voice in your own project and Chrome is simply - theirs. This does not change the underlying truth that you can fork Chromium, adjust it and are finished. If you check the fork history of what people made of Mozilla, there is practical no one from impact, not even Pale Moon as they limit several things drastically. The rest are clown forks with 2 changes ... calling it hardened and independent even if its not because you rely on Mozilla and that is it, not even mention Mozillas failed attempt on Mobile OS and their crippled mobile browser....
Again if govt would provide alternatives as base or fund independent projects by independent people and not rely on others the situation would be better. Then monopolies had a much harder time to compete.
Nobody is saying that using Mozilla's engine in particular (or Apple Safari, for that matter) gives you more independence from Mozilla (or Apple). We are talking about the power inbalance that would result if every single popular browser relies on the same basis managed predominantly by one player (which happens to be Google).
Like you yourself said, Google does "pay for development" so "of course should automatically get a higher voice in [their] own project and Chrome is simply - theirs".
Given that "their own project" is used by everyone (to the point that competition that doesn't use it is "DYING"), this means their engine is the de-facto standard, and thus "Google automatically gets a higher voice" when it comes to the development of web standards. That's the problem.
Nobody is saying that Google shouldn't have a higher voice over its own project. What we are saying is that Google shouldn't have a higher voice over web standards. We are saying that we need competition to not die.
I literally implied that using Apple (or Mozilla) doesn't give you independence from Apple (or Mozilla). Either there was a misunderstanding or you are actually saying I was right.
And I even prefaced it with "Nobody said..." because it's actually irrelevant to the point.
F-Droid is not a browser. Of course it's not a replacement.
Remember we are talking about Chrome and Chromium-based browsers. We are not talking about replacing "Google Play", nor any other Google service (it would be nice, but it's not the point).
I'm not sure if I undestand that sentence.
But "web standards" are just design documents that in many cases aren't even properly respected or that end up with extensions or features that deviate from what was defined. At the end of the day web developers end up developing for Chromium engines and testing it there. The implementations matter a lot more, specially when there's a significantly major one that sits over the rest.
The Mozilla Foundation created their own. Yet they are dying. Creating your own does not solve the problem. You need people to actually use it.
But at least I think you agree with me that Google actually gets a higher voice than the competition.
If you think that this power imbalance is fine, and that it's ok for one private company to have such an influence over such an important standard... well.. that's your opinion and I'd have to "agree to disagree".
There doesn't need to be a replacement for ad revenue. The web functions just fine when it's just a bunch of passion projects without ways to monetize other than some scattered donations. If anything, it's much better and healthier.
The best browser is one that does not bend to the needs of the rent-seeking parasites who have ruined the modern web.
Rember when reddit still relied on donations?
I wonder if any of those donators got anythingbackk after they killed Aaron Schwartz and monetized the platform.
I am afraid this is incorrect open source has massive funding issue. The reality vs what you theoretically could do are different things, usually only bigger projects getting lots of funding and donations.
The web is also basically just one big ad. Yt, lemmy, everyone practical only advocates and advertise a website, link, info whatever. So yes you need actual solutions, getting rid of ads and replace it with donations never works. Starts here with the fact that people copy and paste entire paywalled content on the website because they refuse to support websites just because they want money for the content. People want everything free and not help, always was the case and always will be the case because its too easy to bypass systems.
I'm not saying donation is a replacement for that revenue, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. We don't need donations either. There does not need to be a stream of money coming in to make putting html online worthwhile.
You're too stuck in the mindset of the current web. We do NOT need to bend further to those trying to make money off the web.
Wishful thinking does not win a price, if it would be up to be I would declare monopiles illegal establish world piece in a blink but this is not realistic.
Reality is that people tend to take open source, never donate, and that is it, when the project dies because no one supports it, they go to the next project and the process repeats itself. Only bigger projects without real competition getting attention and funding.
How many bloggers and smaller projects went broke because no one helped, instead you see ... oh f#ck it I bypass your paywall, adblock you to death to ensure you never dare again that you make some buck on my behalf. This is what people really think. There are exceptions but typically people trying to enforce their own believes and opinions on others and this reflects funding. Oh you use ads, f-u not on my watch friend ... and this is what people actually do in the real world.
For example I cannot sponsor lemmy monthly as they do not accept BAT system as donation option and I find it complicated to setup bitcoin to do that, so I let it go. Its that simple, I have no bad intention but for me its more effort and more complicated so I let it go, does not mean I have no good faith or I am not willingly to help when I can, so I help spreading the word but overall when it comes to money people consider twice to support you or not.
Even bigger pages like new york times are forced to go with paywalls because they slowly dying because lack of support, how f#ed up is that. Open web, starts with funding. Otherwise you only help those who have enough money to sit it out, which is google, or in that example google news and why should people help randoms that bleed to death, because they end up anyway on the same big pages once the competition is gone.
THere are three solutions
.. and that is pretty much it, one time donations, well sure, can happen but you need to pay your bills monthly.
It's not wishful thinking. People still host websites for the sake of doing it and never intend to make any money. They will continue to do so, even as the dominant model of the web has shifted. It is not wishful thinking or too idealistic. It already exists and has as long as the web has been around.
None of those "solutions" you propose are necessary. Forget about replacing ad revenue: let it all burn.
This, entirely
Those examples are rare examples and are not the standard. Even Martin Brinkman with 150k+ clicks a day had to gave up and sell his page. You cannot pay your bills with hopes and dreams and you cannot expect someone to produce lots of articles when no one supports you.
Yop, some pages no one heard of it, or pages with 1 post per year like Stallman.org or what. In meantime Google news spits out 100 news a second that actually impact the web and not your 10 clicks a day page.
Totally from another planet dude, cringe. Had to laugh at your bs...
I know they are rare and irrelevant. The point is we don't have to cater to the standard or what's popular. We don't have to cater to those trying to pay the bills with the web. The web does not have to be a revenue stream. If all that's left is irrelevant pages no one cares about, so be it.
You keep responding as if I'm saying we can continue the current model of the web by simply removing ads and replacing them with nothing. I'm not. I'm saying the web as it is should burn.
And don't call me "dude".
So you say we should give up on independent journalism and only let bots on Google news post important infos. I mention Google news to provoke because Mozilla has no own news network that comes close. I am not even telling something new here, the own community came up with ideas for social networks, email systems, news systems - not pocket btw, vpn systems, etc pp. Things Google successfully established. There are also drawbacks like Google+ but you cannot always win. You need to know when its best to review you options and cut things when they become a burden.
..... impressive solution....
Why are you just pivoting into "Mozilla bad" and summarizing Google projects? What are you even talking about?
And yes, the web should burn. If it cannot exist without squeezing money out of people and generally being abusive, it should not exist.
Wishful thinking, this would be in a Star Trek world, believe me I also want such a world too but reality is people are selfish, egoistic, ignorant and god knows what... The whole NFT thing showed us clearly, to name one example ... this is what the web cares about .... not idealism or good faith and wishes...
Lets assume you are disabled, your only option is to make money over the web ... what then .. so your logic here cannot be applied, you want that this person starves to death rather than make some cash or what ...
Everything has downsides, always..
OK then by your logic then how is Lemmy functioning without ad revenue?
Furthermore why are youusing a platform without ads if you like ads so much? Go back to reddit.
It worked for ~20 years before ad banners became a thing.
I agree with you that if we don't like their decision then we can fork but we don't have time or money to maintain the fork.
That is why funding and help is essential, this must come from above to at least provide people with opportunities and a guidance beyond ... oh better use x than y.