It’s difficult to exaggerate the damage that has been caused to the original vision of the web through the commercialisation of domain names. Imposing artificial scarcity and the complexity of commerce systems on a fundamental identifier makes it orders of magnitude harder to self host. Domain names should be a public good. We should embrace opennic.org/ in the EU and mandate that all browser vendors implement support and get Let’s Encrypt to provide TLS support.

#FreeTheDomain

@aral Under what legal theory can a liberal government micromanage all browser vendors?

@freakazoid @aral under the same theory that allows them to micromanage the ingredients in food, or medication, or.... regulation is common

@walruslifestyle @aral Food safety is explicitly included as a regulatable category. So far software has been relatively untouched.

And we're not just talking about commercial entities here, but open source developers as well.

Food safety laws have been used to squash independent food production fairly effectively. The same will happen with open source once we start regulating software.

@freakazoid @aral the majority of web users use Chrome, from Google, or Firefox, from Mozilla which takes large corporate donations. literally what's being proposed is regulating these large corporate entities to stop them from leveraging their power to wrest money from individuals. exactly what regulation is intended to do. I fail to see the issue, nor the novelty, in this aside from being astounded that it hasn't happened sooner given the level of harm caused

@Shamar @walruslifestyle @freakazoid @aral Isn't this what Anti-trust is for?

How I long for that concept to be taken seriously again.

@alcinnz @Shamar @freakazoid @aral yes. regulating monopolies used to be done more ime, but barely occurs now. when it has, eg to Microsoft, it had a beneficial effect

@Shamar @alcinnz @freakazoid @aral applying antitrust law to Microsoft did not result in the dominance of the Chrome web browser. that is a historically false suggestion. can you please at least try?

@Shamar @aral @alcinnz @walruslifestyle No, we'd have a much worse dystopia where every site uses ActiveX and you can't use most of the web without Windows.

@Shamar @aral @alcinnz @walruslifestyle WASM turns the web into a viable application deployment platform. Or will when it finally escapes JS's broken security model.

@Shamar @aral @alcinnz @walruslifestyle It seems like the goalposts have moved from what application deployers view as a viable application deployment platform to what YOU view as a viable application deployment platform.

@Shamar @aral @alcinnz @walruslifestyle I'm curious how the alternative you think we'd have had MS won their antitrust fight would improve on any of the things you've mentioned?

@walruslifestyle @alcinnz @aral @Shamar And again, we're still talking about what YOU think is a viable platform versus what app deployers would be willing to use. I'm not arguing that it's not a shit show; just that WASM is an improvement over JS that in app deployers eyes will make it sufficient for their needs.

JS is no more transparent than WASM; obfuscated JS is no easier to read than disassembled WASM.

@freakazoid @aral @alcinnz @walruslifestyle

> I'm not arguing that it's not a shit show; just that WASM is an improvement over JS that in app deployers eyes will make it sufficient for their needs.

And again I'm saying that App deployers do not think so (except if you mean or to which WASM can save tons of bandwidth)

> obfuscated JS is no easier to read than disassembled WASM.

You don't know what you say. ;-)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!