Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?
Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?
Mozilla is ~83% funded by Google. That’s right- the maker of the dominant Chrome browser is mostly behind its own noteworthy “competitor”. When Google holds that much influence over Mozilla, I call it a false duopoly because consumers are duped into thinking the two are strongly competing with each other. In Mozilla’s effort to please Google and to a lesser extent the end users, it often gets caught pulling anti-user shenanigans. Users accept it because they see Firefox as the lesser of evils.
Even if it were a true duopoly, it would be insufficient anyway. For a tool that is so central to the UX of billions of people, there should be many more competitors.
public option
Every notable government has an online presence where they distribute information to the public. Yet they leave it to the public to come up with their own browser which may or may not be compatible with the public web service. In principle, if a government is going to distribute content to the public, they also have a duty to equip the public to be able to consume the content. Telling people to come up with their own private sector tools to reach the public sector is a bit off. It would be like telling citizens they can receive information about legislation that passes if they buy a private subscription to the Washington Post. The government should produce their own open source browser which adheres to open public standards and which all the gov websites are tested with.
I propose Italy
Italy is perhaps the only country in the world to have a “public money → public code” law, whereby any software development effort that is financed by the gov must be open source. So IMO Italy should develop a browser to be used to access websites of the Italian gov. Italy can save us from the false duopoly from Google.
You're viewing a single thread.
In principle, if a government is going to distribute content to the public, they also have a duty to equip the public to be able to consume the content. Telling people to come up with their own private sector tools to reach the public sector is a bit off.
This statement is a rearrangement of events. The governments of the world didn't create an online presence and then tell the private sector to create browsers. Governments joined in an already existing method of communication because it was convenient, popular, and browsers already existed to view the content.
My comment does not imply when the first browsers were developed. Nor is it relevant. The problematic status quo sequence:
- offer web-based gov services
- leave people to their own devices.. to fend for themselves and pawn themselves to the private sector as needed to reach public resources
.
The sequence should have been:
- ensure sovereignty-respecting public tools exist
- offer web-based gov services that officially support the tools distributed in step 1
.
The internet began as a military project (government). The graphical web later emerged in the 1990s. So all governments have had 25+ years to become sovereign and ensure that the gov itself is not subjecting people to a US surveillance capitalist.
It was only in the past ~2—3 years that my local government closed its doors and decided to force everyone to do public administration tasks online. Indeed things are happening in a reckless sequence of events. Sovereignty from US tech giants should be sorted out before a government forces people to interact with their web-based services. So w.r.t my local gov, the status quo (first sequence) now has a third step:
- force people to use the web-based gov services without equipping them.
.
Do you see the problem? Step 3 is the most abusive, and that’s quite recent.
That sounds like your government has an issue. That isn't the same as governments as a whole using the web.
In the US, we still have the option to do things in person. The online presence is a convenience. That's how it should work everywhere.
Even in the US people are forced to use the web for public service even if it’s not officially announced.
E.g., suppose you want to see the state secretary’s records for a corporation. A lot of SoS websites try to force you to solve a #CAPTCHA. Fuck CAPTCHAs. I don’t do CAPTCHAs. So there’s an offline option, right? Ha. Try it. Send a snail mail letter to a state secretary requesting the registration records for an arbitrary business you know they should have records on. They just ignore it now. They don’t even have the courtesy to respond to say why they will not treat your request. Offline services have been quietly taken away without people even noticing.
I can walk in to the library of Congress and make a face to face request.
The web is a convenience for any public need in the US.
SoS records are state records, not federal. Are you saying every state shares their corporate database with LoC?
I would not be as fast as you to call the web a mere “convenience” to 99.9% of the country who are not a walking distance from Washington DC. If the analog way of doing something requires thousands of miles of travel, the online way is not a mere convenience. It’s a requirement, in effect.
BTW, it’s worth noting that the LoC has an access restricted Cloudflare website. So their exclusivity makes an offline option essential. If that means face to face in DC, that’s fucked up indeed. You should be able to use the postal service.
I think you're struggling with the difference of convenience and difficulty. Doing things without the web implies you are going to do them in the same way you'd have to pre-web. That makes the web more convenient.
Pre-web, postal correspondence was treated. Now it’s not. Convenience and difficulty are inversely proportional measures of the same thing. When you take away one out of two options, the other option is not a convenience. It’s a requirement.
The idea that you think people nationwide traveling to DC to get a business record is mere inconvenience is absurd. Are you drunk? You’re making a lot of bizarre assumptions, starting with assuming the travel is even possible for everyone nationwide who needs the service. If someone needs to sue a company for $200 and travel costs to DC to get the registered agent of the company is $400, you’ve effectively killed their access public service by nixing correspondence.
Your perverse understanding of convenience is ultimately just a language game that changes the language but not the problem. So let’s say traveling from California to DC to get an address is a mere “inconvenience” and using the web is “convenient”. That so-called “convenience” is essential in countless scenarios. And because what you refer to as “inconvenient” is actually not plausible in a scenario, the need for convenience in your language becomes essential.
Yes, these things are inconvenient. Meaning they are achievable items but at some personal cost and effort. They are not insurmountable.
And a new browser isn't going to change anything. I'm honestly not even sure what you're arguing anymore.
Yes, these things are inconvenient. Meaning they are achievable items but at some personal cost and effort. They are not insurmountable.
You’re not getting it. It’s not achievable.
Pre-web:
- cost of posting a letter to the secretary of state: 55¢
- filing a lawsuit for $200: $90
- return: $289.45 ← achievable because this is a positive number
Post-web:
- cost of travel to Washington DC: $400
- filing a lawsuit for $200: $90
- return: -$110 ← unachievable because this is a negative number
Do you understand the math? Pre-web, it was possible to sue a corporation for $200 and recover $199.45 of that. Post-web, that is insurmountable. If you try, you lose even if you win the judgement. Post-web, the only way to win that case is to use the web. You are therefore forced to use the web in the US.
And a new browser isn’t going to change anything.
Of course it does. A public option can give sovereignty from US tech giants. Otherwise you have the injustice of a government forcing people not only to use technology but to subject themselves and the people to the influence of surveillance capitalists.
Your arguments are all over the place. It's not the governments responsibility to ensure that a law suit is profitable.
And a new browser isn't going to do what you think it is. Any attempt by a government to create a browser is just going to use Blink anyways. The reason so many browsers are using it (including browsers made by tech giants) is that rendering engines are incredibly difficult to maintain. Especially as the Web continues to evolve.