I think mozilla succinctly explained the flaw in the proposal. Introducing technology to make the lives of the majority better is great, but if the necessary side-effect is to permanently exclude a minority of people from the internet, then that isn’t cool.
I would argue it doesn’t even make anyone’s life better, except google and advertiders’
What worries me most is banks. Banks will want to use this for “security”, shutting out everyone from their own bank accounts unless they’re using a proprietary operating system and browser (which ironically makes them less secure).
And even if some banks don’t, and I can simply take my business elsewhere, how will I know which bank to take my business to? Presumably they’ll only require WEI to log in, not to view the bank’s website as a guest, so I’ll have no way of knowing whether the bank is actually usable until after I’ve moved my money.
It will probably be a decade before they throw the switch, what with all the old people using old computers, so it’ll be a complete surprise when it does happen. One day, in 2033, long after I’ve forgotten about this issue, my bank will suddenly refuse access until I “upgrade” to Chrome or Safari…
Well, yeah probably some websites will require it, probably google’s own will, and people will have to run two browsers for the sites that do, and the sites that don’t.
And yeah they can force sites to switch, by downranking them otherwise, like they did with AMP. But I think that’ll only really alienate people.
I can forgo the use of ad-funded news sites. I can’t forgo the use of my bank, and using Windows or macOS to access it will place my bank account in greater danger of a security breach. That’s what’s scary.
agreed. and well said, Mozilla:
This means that no single party decides which form-factors, devices, operating systems, and browsers may access the Web. It gives people more choices, and thus more avenues to overcome personal obstacles to access.
Unfortunately, I bet it’s going to end up exactly like it did with WC3 EME, as linked in the 2014 article mentioned few comments after the one you linked:
I know of people recommending Chrome (not Chromium) because it has Flash Player natively incorporated, so you no longer have to install it separately.
This serves to prove that the majority of users doesn’t know about either the technical or ethical differences in the software they are using.You may also think of the pirated software the are using,but this is a different matter. Ignoring this marketshare goes against Mozilla’s idea of a web available to everyone, not to mention that Firefox is no longer the most used browser as it used to be a a few years ago and it is therefore forced to comply with this kind of requests.
