So a bunch of people who are making technology to improve the Web apparently /just/ found out that Google services don't allow many browsers, except Firefox/Chrome.
That's been policy for /months/. I have been complaining loudly for /three months now/ about how that fucked me over.
Y'all, please recognize that the ignorance to these events is demonstrative of the focus of these people building a better Web - they're able to go /three months/ without realizing that a the Web's largest service provider has cut off all but the largest browsers. Who are they talking to, or not talking to, that lets them maintain that sort of ignorance for so long?
In my circles the move was devastating /overnight/, as we all suddenly found ourselves needing to install Firefox on very old/weak computers, to check out texts and voicemails!
"The web as an open standards platform is rapidly falling apart. :\"
It fell apart /years/ ago, literally more than a decade, as service providers acquiesced to state communication monitoring services.
Just... how do you expect to build a better Web if you are so ignorant as to the broad strokes of its history, outside the bubble of commercialized English Web use, and its little subculture of "commercialized FOSS English Web use"?
Who are you building a Web for? What will be done on it?
I have been shouting as loud as I know that y'all are gravely underestimating the scope of the problem you are looking at. I've been shouting it in poetic language, and in pseudocode.
What is it going to take for folk to realize that in order to build a better Web, they're going to have to learn what the Web is, and in order to do that, they're going to have to learn what the culture of the Web is, and to do that, they're going to have to learn a lot more about cultural identity, at all.
(Which ironically is the same problem I have with most kyriarchists, regardless of field: an ignorance that their reality is a cultural perspective, nothing else.)
@emsenn What browsers were you using? I need to be sure to test things with those.
@woozle tbh i'm hesitant to answer because, as I say, I think the ship has sailed, and I really don't want to give anyone the impression I encourage continuing to develop assets for the Web, a colonial construct through-and-through.
The situation is often presented as "some day you'll have to choose between a kyriarchist Web or an anarchist Web," and as I see it, that choice was made by a lot of people many times already.
I don't know anyone who doesn't have a phone number and real name registered SOMEWHERE in order to be able to have SSL certificates so that browsers will let people see their blog that's about how important privacy is...
...Except the people who have chosen to leave the Web and put their privacy above selling the idea of privacy to others.
The Web was born dead, it kills all it touches, I'm only here because I was told to be, I don't want to help people make it one inch more useful.
@woozle I've come to think maybe the question should be "I'd like to test for what browsers still allow Collaboration, and make my service encourage them to move to browsers that are hostile to it."
Everyone I know that grew up in the kyriarchy is utter infatuated with "dual power systems:" building up a competing system to kyriarchism and letting consumers pick-and-choose their dependency, as they go through life.
This does make non-kyriarchist ways very accessible... and thus very easy to appropriate, co-opt, and sabotage.
And is an unnecessarily "fair game" way of looking at the situation: the kyriarchy is will actively kill people for developing or using systems of power beside itself, yet we are expected to accommodate it fully?
I ain't ever won over someone by pitching them a product; the people who work with me are all here because they actively sought out someone like me, recognized my hositility as an intentional barrier, and after having adapted to it, are permitted access to the resources... as long as they maintain an equal hostitility in guarding those resources!
Obviously some foothold needs to be maintained on the Web, to allow folk to do the seeking out, but putting down some "301 Redirect to esoteric service, please send a postcard displaying a mountian to <postal address> to receive further instructions, if curious" is all I'm interested in.
Sorry for the rambly non-answer, but my short-answer is: "The tools I use to get around the Web are kept secret so as to disallow misuse of that information."
I see "people performing labor to bridge the gap between kyriarchist Web and human communication" as a misuse.
I found your answer quite comprehensible, and food for thought. I get what you mean about guarding access; I've been leaning that way myself with regards to sharing code -- like, I've been open-sourcing most of my work so far, but I'm beginning to think that once it reaches the point of being demonstrably worthwhile, perhaps I need to put up some safeguards to prevent it from being used kyriarchially.
I haven't yet worked out what that's going to look like, or even what specifically needs to be guarded. ...especially since 99% of my live code at this point is traditional web anyway.
I have thoughts; further discussion seems warranted, but I don't know if it's time for those discussions yet or what venues might be suitable.
(And now, I must go put together an invoice for the kyriarchy...)
@woozle I've brought up these points a lot with a lot of people, and I think that might be the fastest I've ever seen anyone go from "I hear what you're saying" to "So how do we perform resource discovery?"
The only immediate feedback I have (I'm working on expressing these ideas a holistic package that's forthcoming) is on "I haven't yet worked out... what specifically needs to be guarded."
I want to highlight this as a very... Web-by perspective? You don't suss out what to possessions to bring inside your house based on what needs to be guarded from thieves and weather and leave the rest out on the lawn. You keep your possessions inside your house, only choosing to reduce an item's security when it is motivated.
I think the question becomes a lot easier to grapple with when it's phrased as working out what specifically needs to be /shared/.
(I find it a POWERFUL framing shift, myself, because it brings up, to me, that there are things which need to be shared BECAUSE you are sharing something else: because you are sharing this blog post, you need to share the author, so people can have that context. But you also need to share public read permissions! And /unobservable copy permissions!/
Looking at what you're sharing, coming from what is private, rather than looking at what's being withheld from public, makes it shockingly clear how much we're asked to share whenever we say "howdy folks! lovely weather, huh?"
I'm listening, and trying to disentangle my brain from the ambient tech groupthink.
I don't think I've had to give Let's Encrypt any personal information, nor does my domain registrar check the name/address I give them -- though obviously if I'm paying by credit card, then they might have my address info for that... so it comes down to the banking system -- which in theory can be bypassed with cryptocurrency, but offhand I don't know of any domain registrars who accept that in payment. TLDR: I grant your assertion.
I guess the next thing is that at some point I need to understand what part of the internet isn't the web if domain-names are part of it. I would like to work on behalf of that, but I don't yet have a good grasp of what it is.
(Your second reply just came in; I'll go ahead and post this after having only skimmed that, so I can read it properly without feeling internal pressure to somehow integrate it into this response.)
Decolonize food. Decolonize medicine. Decolonize housing. Decolonize from European place names, words, languages, statues, and accounting systems that DO NOT BELONG on Turtle Island, and are killing the whole planet. #LivingWalls, not border walls.