How do you replace webgl without identifying information on shader support and GPU model? You don't, that information is given by shader compilation itself.
These technologies are nowhere the same as activex, flash or java. All of those technologies were not built to be safe. They were built to give functionality browsers lacked. Now we have far safer methods of doing this thanks to better features.
Users want their stuff to work, for that to happen you have to have the features necessary for it. Those features are why you can listen to spotify or join voice calls on a browser instead of installing everyones native application which has access to everything.
If you don't want a browser capable of that then use a fork of torbrowser or similar. We will not change anything by trying to reverse the market without actual proof of harm. Instead we can advocate for opt ins to the information these features have given by default.
Who said we need to "replace P2P"? WebRTC's security issues are not predicated on it being a P2P technology.
> How do you replace webgl without identifying information on shader support and GPU model?
There are already ways to draw things in browsers that don't require this information to be leaked. The simple answer to your question is "abstraction".
> These technologies are nowhere the same as activex, flash or java. All of those technologies were not built to be safe. They were built to give functionality browsers lacked.
This statement will, one day be just as true about webRTC and webGL as it is today regarding ActiveX, Java, and Flash.
While I don't have a time machine, I do have full confidence that new technologies will be created that solve today's problems.
> Users want their stuff to work, for that to happen you have to have the features necessary for it.
Before Javascript and Canvas this is literally why ActiveX, Java, and Flash were used. But since we have those better alternatives now, we use them instead.
> You're not going to get browsers behind the idea of burning the ground they walk on.
Maybe not Google, but Mozilla and Apple seem to consider privacy before they implement new potential holes into their browsers.
> Many of the features that end up used for tracking are things people very much like having. Threading, webgl, webrtc, etc.
The cat is already out of the bag with these already-implemented features. My point is that we 1) shouldn't make it worse, and 2) should work to replace these with better options. Users don't care whether their chat app uses webrtc or not -- they just want their application to work. The bad technologies we use don't have to be the way they are. Once upon a time the internet relied on ActiveX controls, Java Applets, and Flash, but we've all since moved past those bad technologies as well.
> No doubt some sites will create barrages of opt in notifications - don't use these sites.
Honestly, this is not a solution. We shouldn't ignore momentum, because when designing global standards, the problem is more than just about you or me, it's about the architecture and expectations that are being created. To use my ActiveX example above -- in some places, for a period of time, it was impossible to do online banking without using IE because every bank used ActiveX controls.