
The Web We Want - raldu
https://webwewant.mozilla.org/en/
======
etendue
The web I want is one that doesn't assume I have an unmetered high-speed
internet connection.

I'm visiting my parents right now. They have what I would term as "rural
internet options": satellite, fixed cellular, or dialup. There is no DSL.
There is no cable. There is no wifi. Satellite has awful latency and an
effective 20GB monthly cap (their advertising is very deceptive because they
pool midnight off-peak data in their advertised caps), fixed cellular has a
30GB cap: there is no provision to buy more data on either service short of
ruinous overage fees.

Browsing around on the modern web filled with autoplay videos, huge JS
libraries, giant pictures, etc. has been sufficient for a 2 person household
to blow through that 30GB cap in less than a month. It was hard for me to
believe, until I instrumented their network and saw for myself. Of course,
accidentally updating any software, accidentally syncing their photo
libraries, etc. are all expensive mistakes.

Most effective changes I have been able to make so far (without frustrating
the parents too much) have been to ad block and get them to use Opera with
Turbo, which has been sufficient to cut their data use by about half. I also
put a timer on the cellular hub power supply to manually shut it off when
they're not at home or when they're sleeping, because despite best efforts
some software still automatically updates.

~~~
Santosh83
I can sympathise with this, as the average Internet speeds at my place are
terrible, especially on the so-called "unlimited" plan, which actually has a
ridiculously low Fair Usage Limit set by my ISP so that I apparently blow
through it within days of the start of a new month, all from just plain
browsing and updating (Linux) software, not even torrenting. Once you're
beyond the fair use limit the speed becomes 60 kbps for the rest of the month
unless I "top-up", for which the ISP often nags by redirecting plain http
connections to their nag-page or sending me emails. But I stick it out and do
any heavy downloading by running the program continuously overnight. It takes
~12 hours to get ~1 Gb of data.

~~~
vram22
>so that I apparently blow through it within days of the start of a new month

Interesting, had the same experience this month, though on my mobile phone's
post-paid data plan. Actually in earlier months too, but those were near the
middle or end of the month. This time it happened within 5 days of the start
of my billing cycle.

You in India? Asking because Fair Use Policy (also has another
cynical/realistic expansion given by users) is a term used by Indian ISPs
(though could be other places too of course).

~~~
Santosh83
Yes. And my so-called "broadband" ISP is BSNL to be exact. But since their
"full-speed" (~200 kbps) connection lasts only a few days each billing cycle
before their fair-use policy kicks in, throttling me to ~60 kbps, you can
hardly call it 'broadband' in any sense of the term. Nevertheless I stick with
it since its sufficient for my needs (albeit you need to cultivate patience)
and cheap enough. But their recent increasingly aggressive attempts to
redirect my connections to their nag-pages asking me to "top-up" or register
for their email are testing my forbearance.

~~~
lozf
I was in Kashmir a couple of years ago and Aircel 3G was almost invariably
faster and more reliable than the BSNL ADSL "Broadband".

------
cdnsteve
The web I want is free of junk loaders, javascript tracking ad garbage making
my page requests crazy slow, unpleasant and hard to use.

FB Pages now have a giant login thing that takes over the entire page if you
aren't logged in. If you close it, it comes back for every other page you
visit.

The amount of stuff that uBlock origin blocks now is amazing. I couldn't even
use WSJ until I turned on ad blocking.

I'm starting to think text based browsing is the future. Using chat like
interface along with voice commands, mainly work directly with APIs and just
never use a browser again. HTML and JavaScript are being taken over by crap on
sites.

The web is starting to feel like a garbage dump. API's are the only logical
path forward I can see.

~~~
kodablah
I think I have a better solution. How about keeping HTML/JS and lose the
bidirectional protocols used to track you.

As a side project I am starting to work on a non-HTTP browser (and non-
websocket, non-webrtc, etc). The first "protocol" will be IPFS. Download all
of the HTML/JS/images and store all the cookies/localStorage you want, you
can't send the information back to any server. Heck, you can't even know you
have a page view. Now to make it more powerful, I will offer a JS API to pages
that let's them use the mutation features of IPFS, but it is strictly opt-in
and the permissions are very narrow and clear to the user (think specific
oauth scopes).

~~~
glassx
> I think I have a better solution. How about keeping HTML/JS and lose the
> bidirectional protocols used to track you.

Is it that common for trackers to have Websocket/WebRTC as a requirement?
Pretty much any trackers I see in the wild is using regular Ajax calls. And if
you're a tracking service, it's not exactly hard to fallback to Ajax if
Websockets aren't available...

EDIT: My mistake, I misread the first mention of HTTP as HTML.

~~~
kodablah
I also consider HTTP a bidirectional protocol used to track you.

~~~
nitrogen
You can be tracked without bidirectional calls, without JS, even without
images or cookies. See the Panopticlick.

~~~
kodablah
> You can be tracked without bidirectional calls

No, you can be fingerprinted and what not, but being tracked requires you send
the data somewhere.

~~~
nitrogen
You can be tracked from page to page using your fingerprint, optionally with
server-side checking of referrers and URL parameters.

~~~
kodablah
> You can be tracked from page to page using your fingerprint

That's not really tracking per se any more than any local stateful data is.

> optionally with server-side checking of referrers and URL parameters

Again, no, this requires sending data to the server (in the URL or as HTTP
headers in this case) which is exactly what I am saying would NOT happen in my
project.

~~~
nitrogen
Saying that fingerprinting is not tracking "per se" is like saying that a
series of pictures taken at evenly spaced sub-second intervals is not a movie
"per se".

How do you request data from a server without making any contact with the
server? The initial page request _is_ sending data to the server. That is
unavoidable.

A web browser sends (or doesn't send) lots of HTTP headers all the time. The
particular headers sent (User-Agent, Referer _[sic]_ , Accept, etc.) or not
sent are additional data that can be used to fingerprint, and thus track you
(not to mention your request IP address).

~~~
kodablah
> How do you request data from a server without making any contact with the
> server?

I specifically mentioned IPFS

> The initial page request is sending data to the server. That is unavoidable.

Wrong. I specifically mentioned IPFS and would introduce storj, sia, maidsafe,
etc as deemed worthy.

> A web browser sends (or doesn't send) lots of HTTP headers all the time.

Not the one I'm talking about. HTTP isn't even in the picture. Please please
read my post that mentions non-HTTP.

------
lighttower
There are some remarkable patterns you can gleen from the data.

\---

1\. rich countries don't care about freedom

2\. countries that are quickly industrializing value opportunity

3\. privacy is valued by everyone - but especially wealthy European nations

4\. privacy is least valued by countries in war / unrest

\--

However, the message between the lines it seems that everyone is basically
saying FREEDOM but within the context of their political realities.

In North America we're worried about our adult content habits becoming public,
or our extramarital affairs, or our secret bank accounts. So hence _privacy_
most reflects this political reality.

In Turkey _freedom_ and _privacy_ are both ~25%. This reflects a developed
society which is experiencing increased controls on internet (and IRL)
freedoms.

Par contre, countries like Iraq / Egypt / Bangladesh, _opportunity_ and
_accessibility_ are the most important, reflecting that what the population
cares most about is economic progress rather than press freedoms.

Malaysia is interesting; they top the list at 31% wanting freedom, yet, there
has been little news (that I heard) about political reform/unrest.

All these responses reflect different freedoms that people are seeking --
contextualized by their political reality. If you lack humans freedoms, like
freedom of speech, the type, of freedom you seek is best described _freedom_.
While _opportunity_ and _access_ best describe economic and knowledge
freedoms. Freedom to do whatever you want without fear of public exposure
damaging marriages, job prospects, is best described by _privacy_

[edit - added clarity] \--

Disclaimer: The above are based on observation and not statistical analysis.
If you can download the raw data please let me know.

~~~
JohnKacz
To (possibly?) validate your point, I chose freedom but only because I
understand freedom to be a larger category which also encompasses privacy. (I
live in the U.S.)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Interesting.

I chose user control. What does that tell about me or my country?

------
seagreen

      What kind of Web do you want?
    
      + Promotes freedom
      + Inspires learning
      + Safeguards privacy
      + Is available to all
      + Creates opportunity
      + Puts me in control
    

This is a good question. My answers would be "inspires learning" and "puts me
in control".

Sidenote: let's address the "enable JS" issue once and for all since it keeps
popping up in these threads.

Imagine an alternate history where a book reading program went critical (we'll
call it "Reader") and took over the world. (In the actual world of course it
was a static document consumer -- the "Browser" \-- that took over everything
and eventually became its own operating system).

In this alternate history there are regular internet fights (occurring in
Reader of course) over whether turning off ReaderScript in Reader is a
reasonable thing to do.

One side says: it's dumb to turn off the programming language in your Reader
and still expect it to function -- programming graceful degradation into every
reader app in the world would cost billions of dollars and be a huge waste.

The other side says: that's true, but I just want to read the Quran without
popups!

Happily synthesis is easy since both sides are right. You should never expect
a readerapp to work without ReaderScript. You should always be able to expect
a book to work without RS -- they should never have had access to it in the
first place.

The path forward is clear. Readers should have clearly different modes for
books (documents/sites in our world) and apps. We should maintain a community
list of which URLs are which, and load that by default into Reader. This way
apps can continue to run programs by default, but we don't get popups in our
books.

------
kleptako
The web i want is one that isnt completely broken by not running javascript

~~~
unethical_ban
So, a web of static files with hyperlinks?

~~~
Karunamon
That's what gopher is for. The WWW has javascript as a requirement, and I
think it's time to stop holding onto any misconceptions otherwise.

Apparently this is an unpopular notion. There's an entire protocol that's
based on links between plain content - use it! The non-javascript users on the
WWW are such a tiny minority that nobody who pays developers is going to
bother with the time. The average user wants the extra functionality that even
basic JS can provide - demanding that the web be supported without it is akin
to demanding support for IE4 on Mac Classic.

That is the reality, folks. You don't have to like it, but you should accept
it.

~~~
extra88
The average web user is ignorant of the possibilities. If they knew how much
faster and stable their web-using experience would be without the excessive,
unnecessary JS on many sites, they would gladly vote for "no JS" as a default.

The content of most sites created today could reasonably been hosted on sites
when IE4 for Mac Classic was current, text, pictures, form fields & buttons.
You don't have to prove it but you should build such a site today using
methods that would likely mean someone using IE4 for Mac Classic would have
some access to the content, albeit not an optimal experience.

~~~
Karunamon
_faster and stable_

And uglier, and limited. While the people here might not have any problem with
the entire web looking like Ward Cunningham's wiki, I doubt the public at
large feels the same...

~~~
DanBC
This is not an attractive website. This site is objectively fucking awful
because of the cruft. (Most of the time pages don't load for me. See this as
one example: [http://imgur.com/4WgHhVh](http://imgur.com/4WgHhVh) )

[http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/](http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/)

See also: Almost any other local newspaper website, from anywhere in the
world.

------
twoodfin
A couple of design comments:

First, I was confused by the animation of green dots on completing the poll
question. I had expected that each dot would light up in a color associated
with the selected poll answer for the associated user, and thought something
must be wrong that I was only seeing the folks who had chosen "Freedom".

Second, once I figured out to hit the color legend to see different results,
the contrast between some of the brighter highlight colors on the map and the
blue background made it nearly impossible to visually distinguish the
gradients.

------
justcommenting
Safeguards Privacy - "Firefox is made under the principle that security and
privacy are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."

Mozilla is certainly treating the cookie management dialog box, which has been
broken for years, as optional. Same with accepting Mike Perry's patches and
various other examples.

If Mozilla could actually do better in terms of privacy and security features
than a handful of Tor Browser Bundle devs, they wouldn't need efforts like
this and their work would speak for itself. I still use Mozilla code every day
and am grateful for their work, but this sort of rhetoric is unimpressive.

~~~
r3bl
Yup, this seems a bit ironic coming from the foundation that recently
introduced the Sync feature (which shits on the privacy section) and made no
serious security enhancements in their browser for quite some time.

~~~
jmcomets
Could you elaborate on the Sync feature? I was under the impression that Sync
now uses Firefox accounts and can't see how it would affect privacy.

------
vcarl
I love that Africa is the highest continent (at time of posting) for
"learning" and "opportunity." I've seen some articles about entrepreneurs in
various African countries and it's always amazing how much impact they're able
to have with limited materials, and access to the web can get you a lot.

------
jfoster
The design of this site doesn't seem so good. It looks (at least on mobile)
like it's informational, but it seems it's actually a poll. As a result, the
numbers on the pages you get taken to after a selection seem a bit
underwhelming. (Eg. 12% want a web that's...)

------
arca_vorago
The web I want:

1) One that isn't completely dominated by advertising.

2) One that isn't dominated by proprietary software, that encourages users to
participate in FOSS.

3) One focused on data. Part of the problem of javascript, so uneeded in most
cases.

4) More on javascript, how about one where each page doesn't load 30 scripts
from alternate domains? Even the _major_ new sites do this, and it makes me
hate them.

5) One where ISP's don't hand over browsing information to anyone with a
dollar or a badge without a warrant.

6) One where VPN's and other privacy centered providers learn how to build
systems that don't keep logs and are built with privacy as a first class
citizen.

7) Not last, and certainly not least, I mostly want a web that encourages and
grows the freedom of thought, speech, and discussion that is and was such a
fundamental part of the origins of the internet in the first place. It seems
increasingly marginalized on the modern web. The beauty of communications
mediums is the power it gives the formerly powerless, but I think the
oligarchy has recognized this threat and this is why the internet is going to
be increasingly a target of bad legislation written by corrupt
"representatives". Beware cries of hate speech or any other attempts at
censoring "for the greater good".

Just a few of things I want in web off the top of my head. As for this Mozilla
page, I think if we think about the four freedoms and fundamental principles
behind them, user control really has to be the starting point. You can't have
privacy if the user can't turn off spywidgetX. You can't have freedom if the
user can't Y.

Once again, I feel like one day, if we don't destroy ourselves as a species,
we will look back and wonder why it took people so long to understand why RMS
is and was right. The four freedoms are fundamental to the web I want, and
while I often get a lot of hate on HN for being so pro RMS/GPL, I think if
more people took the time to understand the issues they would tend to agree.

edit: One where strong theoretical and practical encryption is for everyone,
and isn't vilified by the government.

~~~
tangue
Why is this downvoted ? Shouldn't we share these values as hackers ?

~~~
chc
As a hacker, I appreciate the platform the Web offers for code. So I don't see
why you'd necessarily expect me to agree with a complaint about the ability to
write code for the Web.

(I didn't downvote, though. I just think it's strange to expect universal
agreement with Javascript Luddism among hackers.)

~~~
ams6110
I don't perceive "Javascript Luddism" in GP's post, more annoyance with the
abusive and gratuitous use of Javascript so prevalant today.

~~~
tangue
Couldn't have said it better. I have javascript activated and will continue to
do so. But when my CPU fan sound like an airplane because of some slider or
poorly written code ...

[Out of subject] I'm curious how many nuclear and coal plants are required for
web browsing related tasks today ...

------
pessimizer
What kind of world do you want?

    
    
      A) One with babies
      B) One with rainbows
      C) One with good meals
      D) One with friends and fun
      E) One with novelty and adventure
      F) One that makes us smarter, faster, and more beautiful
    

Click through to our map to find out where people were sitting when they
picked one of these choices.

edit: to be clear, what I'm trying to say is that this is far less a survey
than a vapid corporate ejaculation. I don't understand how Mozilla's culture
ended up like this. Was it always like this?

~~~
BrendanEich
No, it wasn't always like this.

------
bcheung
That list is so touchy feely. It makes me feel like one of those "What are our
company values?" meetings where people spend hours deliberating about things
that are just a random list of positive adjectives taken from a dictionary.

How about a list of features instead?

Here are some things I'd like to see:

    
    
      - prevent videos from auto playing / making sound
    
      - prevent sites from forcing me to turn off AdBlock
    
      - sleep mode for tabs (sometimes I leave tabs open that I mean to read later) but they still take up a lot of resources even if I don't open that tab for weeks.
    
      - readable mode (I don't want to see animations right next to the article I'm trying to read).  It's extremely distracting.  Maybe a pause mode (where the entire page is 

frozen and nothing can change?)

    
    
      - stop changing where the text is on the page as I read it (as pages load, as ads show up / disappear).
    
      - Scrolling should be linear.  I shouldn't scroll down and see the text move in the opposite direction because some header disappears from the top of the page, this shifting the text up higher).
    
      - Raise the simultaneous download limit and/or allow a large number of them to be queued without me having to wait until a slot frees up to make sure that file is going to be downloaded.
    
      - Make it easier to kill distracting elements on a page with a single click.
    
      - Anything that allows me to be able to develop for a single platform (the web) instead of having to deal with native app development, app store restrictions, and another company taking a huge chunk out of sales.

------
Borating
And don' t forget to watch this short video by Mozilla - "The Hidden Business
of the Internet" [1]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LcUOEP7Brc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LcUOEP7Brc)

------
StevePerkins
I wish that the vocal 1% who want a JavaScript-free web would just rediscover
Gopher.

------
mevile
In this thread: people who don't turn JavaScript on by default and are unhappy
when sites don't work because of it. They must get angry a lot.

It's like wanting my Android and Mac applications to work without code too,
like wanting my entire operating system to just handle PDF files and maybe
have a functional text editor. It's like whatever state computers were in
1999, that's what is desired. Are we on Hacker News? A technology news site?
People here don't want to use technology and see it evolve and progress?

~~~
CaptSpify
I love using technology. I hate using shitty technology that detracts from the
experience, by trying to provide an experience.

~~~
mevile
So you would have preferred a survey monkey experience to this site?

~~~
toyg
"This site" (and I mean HN) is almost entirely JS-free. Coincidence?

~~~
mmastrac
You'd prefer a reload of the page every time you upvote? Even a mostly static
site like HN needs some JS to make the experience drastically better.

~~~
CaptSpify
I do believe JS _can_ make sites better. I just think that it's _WAY_ overly
used and abused, and actually makes most sites less functional. Think of it
like salt: a little bit and it enhances your food. But if you keep piling it
on, it doesn't keep improving things.

------
Bedon292
I am really curious, what would the results be like if this we run on
Facebook? Does the poll being ran where it is bias the results. ~34% say
privacy, but it that sample bias? Or a real representation of what people as a
whole are interested in?

~~~
CaptSpify
AFAIK, this could be shared on FB, and we are probably eeing some of the
results from there. It'd be interesting to see how this breaks down by source
though.

~~~
r3bl
> ...and we are probably eeing some of the results from there.

Yes, probably, but don't forget that those are the people who probably liked
privacy-related Facebook pages and don't necessarily represent the opinion of
an average Facebook user.

------
fridek
I find it sad that people value privacy so highly over anything else,
including accessibility and opportunity. It's not that I don't treasure my
privacy. I just don't get how it can be more important that ability to work on
interesting stuff, freedom to access world's information and to learn from it,
or even control over my devices configuration.

Privacy should be an added value, not something we put in front of everything
else. It would be meaningless if web wouldn't enable us to do what we do. So
in reality, isn't this poll just a list of things we already have thanks to
the internet, plus one thing we don't have - privacy?

~~~
panglott
Privacy is a foundational value. It is necessary for trust and sharing.
Without financial privacy, online commerce would not exist because people
wouldn't trust to share their banking information. Without some modicum of
social privacy, people wouldn't trust to share information with their friends
& family.

& I avoid using the services I do not trust.

------
franblas
Privacy seems to be on top issue for all regions. Not surprising regarding
recent events.

------
gregn
The thing is, I think the thing we want and the thing we get are two different
things now. Its not a question of tech, such as Javascript, its a question of:
I want to read, write and communicate. What I want basically, is an RSS feed
reader and writer that actually works. I dont want adds, for the most part I
dont want images, unless I specifically seek them out. What we want is the web
experience that something like Instapaper provides, which is to isolate the
content of the blog post or news article and eschew all the rest, and present
it in a readable form in the font I like. This makes the act of information
intake painless and flow easily. It sounds ridiculous in a sort of post-RSS
environment, but what we need is RSS, to be implemented by someone in a way
that makes it work, so it will be used by everyone.

------
Whackbat
An interesting but unsurprising result - we want a private web.

------
FranOntanaya
Not sure if I'm supposed to choose the most important one, or go back and
select each thing that matters.

------
orf
Looks good, but it really seems to be the "Web Europe and America want".

------
return0
Mozilla is in the right place to implement two things (in a non-profit way): A
centralized sign on a-la persona and a browser-mediated payment solution.
These two would move the web forward in a fantastic way.

------
mark_l_watson
The web I want would have a built in micro-payment system (someone mentioned
this in a presentation at the Decentralized Web Summit last week). This would
provide an option to advertisements.

I would like to see strong privacy controls protected by the same strong force
of law that media companies have with DMCA, etc. Citizen's interests should be
protected at a higher level than corporation's interests.

I would also like a better mechanism for controlling how much extra media a
server sends the browser. Browsing with Lynx (text based) is an option, but
not so nice.

------
LordLestat
The web i want is a a web where Mozilla sees no reason to compete with Chrome,
the web i want is where Mozilla still have faith in built inside customization
and choice and options instead of design and simplicity and minimalism.

The web i want is a web with a Mozilla which does not care for Google at all
and puts them and their shady actions and browser development concept on
ignore.

------
carapace
HAHAHahahahahaha! Oh the irony. This page doesn't work with JS disabled.

(BTW you folks who downvote me for complaining about sites that fail without
JS, what gives? What's your idea here? I can't use the web without JS? I'm the
idiot? No. I don't agree. Make your site do something reasonable without JS or
_you 're_ the idiot. C'mon.)

~~~
imtringued
Your expecations are way too high. That entire site couldn't even exist
without javascript. How else would you visualise that data? Do something crazy
like generate an image of the changed map on every request? At that point why
even bother with HTML? Why not serve entire pages as a single image? Or worse
we could also go back to the old days of flash and java applets...

HTML and CSS are crap. People are forced to use javascript even for the
simplest things not because they want but because have to. Javascript itself
is not much better but at the very least it prevents this frankenstein monster
from falling apart.

You are the idiot because you're asking for the impossible.

~~~
TeMPOraL
How about I visualize the data myself?

I mean, honestly - this website is a simple poll with results in the form of
(imprecise geographical coordinates, voting choice). It would be about 100x
better if served in this form:

    
    
        | Country         | Availability | Freedom     | Opportunity | Control     | Learning    | Privacy     |
        |-----------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
        | *NORTH AMERICA* | aggregate %  | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % |
        | ...             | specific %   | specific %  | specific %  | specific %  | specific %  | specific %  |
        | ...             | ...          | ...         | ...         | ...         | ...         | ...         |
        | *EUROPE*        | ...          | ...         | ...         | ...         | ...         | ...         |
        | ...             | ...          | ...         | ...         | ...         | ...         | ...         |
    
    

It would be infinitely better if the whole data was also served as a CSV file.

I mean, I get it. This page is just an ad. It needs to look nice. But it
bothers me when sites that are supposed to be useful are being designed as art
forms.

------
anonbanker
We as a society are being pushed away from the ideals that took root in the
90's, when the web/internet was a libertarian paradise. Most graybeards would
put freedom much higher than privacy or anything else. It seems the millenials
are more concerned with hiding. How can someone have one without the other?

------
intrasight
While "privacy" gets the majority of the votes, I believe that we can't get
privacy without most of the others.

------
gloves
It's not a perfect method of collecting data, but interesting privacy is the
top result in every continent on earth.

------
tomc1985
How typical. Offer "choice", but limit said choices to things which only serve
Mozilla's interests....

------
ravenstine
The problem what that page is that it doesn't include answers that are
antithetical to Mozilla's values. Add "I want a safe space on the internet" as
a response, and I imagine you'll get far more people clicking that than anyone
who wants freedom, privacy, learning, etc.

------
putzdown
Why just six choices? Why these? Why not "Beautiful"? or "Ad-free"? You know,
what I'd really like is a web full of intelligent and polite discussion.
Where's that option? What does Mozilla mean by "Web" here? What exactly is on
offer?

------
programminggeek
The web people want has all their favorite things like Facebook, Google,
Netflix, YouTube, ESPN, Yahoo, and on and on.

People don't care about much else. It's the killer apps, not the freedom that
people are buying. People trade freedom for shiny things because it makes them
feel good.

------
DavideNL
The web i want is one where i can properly zoom... zooming in/out on a Macbook
(pinch to zoom) is just terrible in Firefox - compared to Safari and
Chrome/Chromium where zooming is very smooth.

It seems like a small/unimportant thing but it's sooo annoying...

~~~
TheRealPomax
stay on target - that's not the web you want, that's a bugfix in one of the
dozens of browsers that try to present you with the data you're telling it to
pull down from the web.

~~~
DavideNL
well okay, let me rephrase: Mozilla's "Manifesto" (and things like 'the web
you want') is awesome, however some annoyances prevent me from using Firefox;
i wish they would implement new features more rapidly like for example proper
zooming (which has been present in other browser for ~ 4 years), and for
example a sandbox.

It doesn't matter how great your Manifesto is (and what kind of web you want),
if things like this prevent people from using your product.

------
pasbesoin
Well, given I can't get even a jist of what the page is about without
Javascript... not this.

------
wodencafe
I can't tell what's going on with the map?

What's with all the little dots fading in and out?

~~~
odabaxok
From the site: "When you select any of the sharing links, we add your location
to the map to show the worldwide impact of our community."

~~~
vincentriemer
From their video, "I am not a data point".

Proceeds to turn us into literal data 'points'.

~~~
pritambaral
> I am not a data point _to be bought and sold._

Cutting off that clause really changes the intended meaning.

------
maglavaitss
The web I want is one that above all others, respects privacy and my rights.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689)

------
ilostmykeys
The web I want has real security, not "HTTPS Everywhere" that provides clear
text access to nation states while providing a false sense of security.

------
putzdown
Unfortunate choice of green (="Freedom"?) as the color for dots that simply
mean "someone just responded."

------
daveguy
One that doesn't know enough about me to be able to put a dot on a map to
represent me.

------
gnuvince
I want a web with less JavaScript.

~~~
BrendanEich
Me too, wherefore two separate efforts:

* Brave has built in no-script support, and NoScript is a top add-on for other browsers.

* WebAssembly.

You're welcome! :-P

------
cowmix
Jeebuz, I just want a Firefox browser that isn't a piece of crap that doesn't
lock up and suck battery.

Let's start there first.

------
znpy
All o can think after seeing the page is... "so what?"

------
j-pb
Stable and documented like SQLite.

Oh wait we did a step in that direction with WebSQL until mozilla killed it
out of not invented here syndrome.

~~~
sp332
Firefox uses SQLite for tons of things internally, like history and bookmarks.
So when they say that SQLite is "quirky" and "bad for the web" I would tend to
believe them. [http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-
feature...](http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-features-is-
hard_03.html)

Edit: A better discussion of what the quirks are, so you don't have to just
take their word for it. [https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-
in-memor...](https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memoriam/)

~~~
j-pb
I don't see how the second link you provided shines any bad light on sqlite.
It calls it the easiest to use of the 3. To me the irc conversations he cites
make it very clear that mozilla was Simply bashing SQL at the peak of the
NoSQL bubble.

I also see the lack of alternative implementations as a plus. SQLite is as
portable as C essentially. So it's the only Web standard that's not broken and
different in subtle ways across browsers.

If you look through old mail and irc archives you'll also find that somebody
actually offered to specify a websql sqlite independent of sqlite under the
condition that mozilla will assure that they will implement it. Which didn't
happen.

~~~
sp332
Yeah, the main thing was differences between versions (even point versions) of
the underlying SQLite installation on any given device. The spec probably
would have helped with that. Also I don't know why Mozilla got opposite
feedback about whether web devs wanted SQL compared to everyone else, but that
also seemed to be a big factor.

~~~
j-pb
SQLite is probably one of the most backwards compatibility conscious projects
I know. They even will continue to support version 3 and 4 in parallel.

I don't think compatibility between browsers is very prominent in the minds of
browser vendors tbh, considering how many browsers fail to implement
specifications correctly.

I think it's pretty clear why people opposed SQL. All this happened in the
midst of the NoSQL hype. Where everybody was bashing SQL in favour of key
Value stores and document databases (which turned out to have far more
constraints than people assumed) (I made the same mistake back then). And
especially Web developers have a tendency to go for the newest shiniest of
trends (bazillion Web frameworks anyone).

I try to see a silver lining in this though. With the spec deprecated, and
sqlite 3 being long term supported, WebSQL is probably the most compatible,
complete and stable of any of the HTML5 specs. And as long as the browsers I
care about support it (safari, chrome and Opera) not having the spec change
with every trend and and hype is not a liabilit but an asset.

------
digi_owl
A couple of those are vague to say the least, the freedom one in particular.

Are we talking freedom from or freedom to? And how about if my freedom to
tramples your freedom from?

The whole thing is yet another example of the feelgood "sjw" stuff that
Mozilla have been throwing around in recent years, while turning a formerly
potent browser in to a Chrome clone web terminal.

Not even sure if they have tested that site on their own offering, as jumping
to and from the tab in Firefox made the whole thing crawl.

