News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mozilla Standards Positions Opposes Web Integrity API by jauntywundrkind on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @12:12AM (#36857787)
Mozilla followed Safari's strong lead in creating/supporting a new anti-web/web-hate bonanza in 2020. After being the company to try webOS (boot to gecko) & not succeeding & loosing faith, they became an anti-web anti-platform anti-capability entity. They pitched in alongside Apple as some noble anti-web-cause. But many of these were/are good & useful technologies; that anti-web flag-waving stung. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16...

Moz has gotten significantly better recently & reevaluated many of these staunch anti-stances & started working towards figuring out how to adopt, rather than piss around. But for quite a while their standards positions on supporting new use cases & expanding the platform was no no no no no no no. As a web company it's hard to see what their cause was. I'll leave aside their execution & org structure as there are already fair comments on that, & they don't bear on what I care about most; I just wanted a Moz that wanted a better more capable web, but it felt like they saw dunking on possibility as better for their prospects than helping & participating, like safari had done forever, at a long critical juncture.

Please do grow good again! You've been getting better. But what a shitty long duration of being against everything, Mozilla. The web is essentially a committee based system, with far too few players in general & less trying to move forward; disruptive negative elements have massively outside presence and Mozilla was playing on team evil team anti for quite a while.

Re:Mozilla Standards Positions Opposes Web Integrity API by kmeisthax on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @01:12AM (#36858193)
The list you linked includes things like: web access for bluetooth, MIDI, and USB devices. These are very fringe use cases that quite frankly shouldn't be accessible from a random website.

The rest of these sound like extra bits of fingerprintable entropy here and there. Like, in no way will a website knowing how much RAM I have will improve my experience, but it'll help add a few bits of data to my web advertising fingerprints. Magnetometers and battery status would absolutely be fingerprintable; individual device characteristics would be unavoidably measurable.

The page you linked to actually lists all this out, and that should be enough to convince you that these standards shouldn't be implemented.

Re:Mozilla Standards Positions Opposes Web Integrity API by jauntywundrkind on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @01:20AM (#36858251)
Contemporarily, they aren't accessible from random websites. They require permissions.

We can argue over how they should be accessible. Mozilla came out swinging for the perspective that they shouldn't be part of the web at all.

There's a lot of ya'll with poisonous rotten shit running through your veins. Thank you for at least speaking up, not just silently being part of the muting silencing horror. But it's still a vicious shitty crypto-native ardency that believes the web should always have it's wings clipped. That's the vicious force at bay here. It's a toxic mentality. It was here too. It had no regard, no middle ground, nothing but the same utterly uncompromising anti-web charge that Safari had begat mere days before.

These words are now mute, since I have indeed been voted under with anti-web zeal. What a sad lot these shallow anti-web foes are.