Mozilla’s position on WEI is pretty solid.

    • Qiqi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I fear Mozilla will oppose it right up until they implement it, they know who butters their bread and their CEO has a hunger for loafs.

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        They have already opposed it, and your speculation based on your dislike of their CEO probably isn’t helpful. It’s against the open web and Mozilla has no incentive to implement this. It’s something only an ad company would be keen on.

        • Qiqi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is based on them being wholly funded by Google, I think it is helpful to point that out when we are talking about them biting the hand that feeds them. If Google does in fact force this upon you to use their services then Google search will be part of that and Google search is where Mozilla makes a vast majority of its funding.

          • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right now they make money from google for default search because they pay the most. Previously they went Yahoo and could go bing. They did not implement web manifest v3, so you’re insinuation isn’t based in fact. Plus, this has nothing to do with search, it is to do with after search when on a website.

            • Qiqi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If Google is pushing a feature to secure higher ad revenue they’re obviously going to implement it on their own services such as search. As for Bing Microsoft have implemented Manifest v3 in Edge and it’s unlikely they will skip out on Web Integrity. Time will tell but it’s likely Firefox will be pushed into supporting it.

              • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I don’t think MS implemented it. It’s chromium, they just took the code base. Some browsers actively removed it, but when you’re based on chromium, you start with the code that google gives you.

                MS taking a codebase and doing nothing with it logically makes no sense to imply that Firefox will purposely resource and write code contrary to web freedoms.

                Whether they implement in web search is speculation, they’d be purposefully downranking companies in search for not implementing something that cost them revenue excluding their customers. It would be google vs companies, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

                Either way, state your position. Are you suggesting people should roll over and take it, or move to Firefox, because all this side debate is doing nothing useful.

      • aeternum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I use waterfox currently. If this takes off, I will browser shop until I find a browser that doesn’t implement it. If i come across any sites that don’t work, well, I just won’t use their sites anymore.

          • aeternum@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            the site i mostly use is kbin and other open source/privacy respecting sties, and I doubt ernest would implement WEI on this site. Any other sites, I can do without. they don’t want my viewing? fuck them.

    • profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Although a comment close below puts a little dent into that ^^

      https://github.com/mozilla/> standards-positions/issues/852#issuecomment-1649928726

      I guess, even if “it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.”, it might happen just like the past:

      https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ Formal objection: FLOSS and EME w3c/encrypted-media#378 https://daniele.tech/2014/05/firefox-drm-and-w3c-eme-complicated-technical-matter/

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think Firefox’s position is unreasonable here. Ultimately, the old way of distributing copy-write content wasn’t going to work. Companies that had right to something, couldn’t easily distribute it without a large risk of piracy and a tanking of revenues. Having a sandbox around proprietary shite made sense and protected users privacy while also enabling the content providers to maintain their asset.

        Removing ad blocks is a wholly different ball game. Google obviously has a stake in it because YT is funded by ads. Maybe some ad driven content providers also, but subscription driven services don’t have the same need for that. It does seem an unholy alliance between content providers and big tech has been formed and it could be something at play again.

        • profilelost@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I actually agree and appreciate your response. I was just poking a little fun at the “impossible” there but Firefox absolutely has been an invaluable voice for neticens all over the world.