So now we want the government to define what can be defined as a browser? So what is this government agency that has the technical wherewithal to “regulate browsers”?
What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions?
It amazes me how willing some people on HN just willingly give up their freedom to the government.
You really trust NIST to know the intricacies of creating a browser? Besides, hasn’t the last few years shown you what happens when you have government organizations led by people who aren’t experts but who are appointed for political reasons?
Even when you do have competent people in the government like in the CDC, they are still hamstrung by the ideology of the executive branch.
My suggestion, though, is different. If NIST has such an approval process, then, Apple/Google/Mozilla/anyone else doesn't have to go through an approval process, but if they do go through such process then they can put on their product, the sign "Approved by NIST as web browser compliance".
However, I am not so sure that such a thing is even necessary at all. I think the use of the web browser should be reduced in order that this is not necessary.
By an organization for use by the public at large? Yes!!
Devs can still make browsers explicitly for other devs or for non-public use. If society depends on your product to function then your product must be regulated. Imagine google auto-updates chrome to stop supporting http or something, imagine the economic chaos. The whims of Googlers are not something the public should rely on. Everything from their standards compliance to their change control should be regulated,same goes for mozilla.
Perhaps stanrdizing the QA process would have prevented this? The problem I was addressing is this issue falling inline with a pattern set by google. They wouldn't test only against Google if Google's whimsy divergences didn't mean it cost too much to support anyone elss in your QA.
Maybe I'm underestimating Twitters developers, but in this case I honestly doubt Twitter had a QA process testing if things remained in browser cache at all, until someone pointed out that there is a problem. If they had thought about it as a problem, adding the cache header would have been easier to implement and test for than browser testing somehow.
Oh please, give me a break here. Browsers are essential to modern life. Anyone from a young student to an old person about to retire needs them to survive these days, so yeah I want them to regulate this.
> What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions?
You're joking right? You think the government can't do that already? Ok,let's see the logic here , let's say that's the case. What happens when Google decides to have content restrictions? Nothing! It's not regulated activity so it falls under Google's freedom of speech,they can restrict any content they want. However b.s. it might be, in theory at least you have some control over your government. Google does what is in their best business interest, you are the product, advertisers are their customers.
Your illusion of freedom is to have your own government as far away as possible. Would you be comfortable if General Motors or Ford decided the safety standard or road-readiness of cars? Certainly you can't have government take away your freedoms by telling them what is safe and acceptable for the general public to use? What if the government decides to have them restrict cars from driving to certain places!
Oh please, give me a break here. Browsers are essential to modern life. Anyone from a young student to an old person about to retire needs them to survive these days, so yeah I want them to regulate this.
You really have no idea how many seniors don’t have internet access. I don’t think a browser not properly supporting the CSS box model will kill anyone....
What happens when Google decides to have content restrictions? Nothing! It's not regulated activity so it falls under Google's freedom of speech,they can restrict any content they want.
How can Google restrict the websites I go to?
However b.s. it might be, in theory at least you have some control over your government. Google does what is in their best business interest, you are the product, advertisers are their customers.
As if government officials don’t do what’s in their own best interest. Because of the way that both the electoral college and the Senate is designed, if you live in a more populous state, you will always have less voting power than someone in “Middle America.” Not to mention gerrymandering.
So exactly how does a browser not adhering to standards affect my survival?
I don't know about seniors but I routinely need a browser to fill out government forms. I routinely need browser to apply for employment or unemployment,to purchase esse tial goods, to operate a viable business. Your logic is that people can walk so cars should not be regulated. My logic is even if people can walk, cars are used so much and are critical for so many and their lack of safety could be so catastrophic that it cannot be left to the manufacturer to have good faith and know what is best for the public. I don't really care about your survival as an individual but I do care about stability of society,economy and not having to depend on corporation's good will for things I need.
Your logic can apply to healthcare as well. Plenty of healthy people. Plenty of people have good jobs and insurance. So does that mean healthcare affordability for everyone should not be regulated?
Oh and the whole electoral college b.s., so you're saying we should disband FTC,FDA,EPA and all other regulatory agencies as well? Come on!
> How can Google restrict the websites I go to?
Easy, they can block it out right or simply deprecate support for the site. A close-enough example is ublock origin and how google basically crippled their ability to block ads. Were there regulations, it would not be up to google. The first thing that should be regulated is their ability to deprecate random things on a whim.
So now before Google can make any changes to their browser, they should have to wait for a regulatory committee?
This is the same government whose ancient COBOL systems can’t handle the influx of unemployment claims and their is a submission currently on the front page of HN about one agency forcing people to fax a claim in.
significant changes will have to go through a browser comittee much like CAB for PKI CA. We wouldn't need this if Google and friends didn't act in bad faith and in abuse of the power they have as a monopoly. Unregulated monopolies people depend on are always a bad thing.
What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions?
It amazes me how willing some people on HN just willingly give up their freedom to the government.