Except for the signs forming part of the hyperlink itself, the page on which the hyperlink is established will contain no distinguishing sign of those acknowledged by current legislation as belonging to Igalia, S. L., except where the latter has given its express authorisation.Mastodon/Friendica show me not only the link itself but also preview of logo etc... Without their authorisation... :-)
The hyperlink will only allow for access to the Web site HOMEPAGE:-)
Ahem, an independent organisation lobbying for a public-funded web browser is technically just as much “political interference” as Google lobbying for the opposite. Any government or international structure such as EU is the sum of political interferences, and it’s only a problem when these are not balanced or some stakeholders are not represented.
@xro @kravietz @aral it's a good/bad path, people would be pushing on a open door at the #EU to folk Firefox at mo... Would need a soughted crew and likely in the end get to the same #NGO place that we are in now. A good outcome could do something in the "space" a move like this would open a "commons" for a while #OMN
@witchescauldron @aral In Germany the public media is separated to some degree from short-term politics by separating financing from government decisions. There are people who rally against this, but it is one of the reasons there’s a minimum standard for quality of news that the privates don’t dare to undercut too much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#Germany
@email@example.com have a call to action once you dissociate with big corporations. Ask the community of people to fund, ask them and the content creators to promote.
We all want the same thing, so we can achieve it.
@aral Funding is the issue. I however lean in the direction that software should be crowd funded. That way, actual people are in the control of the project as opposed to organizations.
We need a paradigm shift. We expect everything from the internet to be free. But we need to normalize to give back to creators. We need systems that makes it easy, secure, private and convinient to tip. In a way that preserves autonomy.
@vega If only there was a concept where we could all give a portion of what we make to crowdfund things for the common good… I don’t know, we could call it Raxes? Saxes… ? Something like that ;)
this is why I look at Gnome, Kde, Enlightment, any other desktop anv
AND to clw's work
because if we have hte data, we can also support the mantaining of our GUI layer (whatever that is)
In order to have a sustainable frontend, you need the ability to flood it with data
That's the hack we suffered with the web
We should do it again
@vega I think voluntary donation/payment (if it's voluntary, is there really a difference?) is a good solution.
Either as a tiny and plain notice while using your application that the developers need financial help/would benefit from financial help. And this notice should be possible to permanently turn off at the top of the settings. Or, as a dual set of buttons when you go to acquire the software, giving you the options between "Donate to support the project", or "Just the software, please"
@vega That said, I think also there's the problem that you often don't know if you want to support a project, before you've actually tried it and become acquainted with it and its community. So I think a "Donate to creators" feature could be useful, along with a "See available creators", so you can see all relevant creators in the application context you're in.
Because of ppl's budget constraints I do think that automated donations would be useful though. One pool spread out on many creators.
@vega Pool as in: I have 10 euros or 100 NOK set aside each month to support creators. And if I have this budget constraint set up, then each time I press to add a creator, they will get "1 share" of that pool. I can press multiple times (and the button should change to reflect that I'm giving extra shares) to give some special creators an extra piece of the budgeted donation pool I have.
@aral The challenge is also very much political, as well as it is societal.
EU is not that far from openly asking for the same tools/level of control and means to track its 'users', once upon a time called citizens. Maybe not to make gigantic piles of money but that doesn't change their willingness to access and use the exact same tools. And have them developed if need be.
The tracking (as much as our willingness to live with it) is the issue, more than it being commercial or not. Imho.
@aral You are absolutely right, funding is the most challenging part. And you need it for two things - one is development, the other is basically lobbying or campaigning. You can start with either, but will need the other eventually:
if you secure initial funding, hire devs, and create a fork, you'll need to eventually invest in some form of monetization or marketing to convince EU citizens and/or politicians to fund the project.
if you secure initial funding and use it for lobbying/campaigning, you might eventually have enough funds to maintain the project in the long run but will then need to start hiring devs.
In either scenario you'll also have to overcome the overall community's reluctance to invest in the marketing/campaigning/lobbying part.
If you want it to be a robust, sustainable project, it's more about organizing and leading the effort than forking the code.
@aral I'm not sure where to stand on this. Is forking the best option? Are there design baggage if we use firefox code? Wrong assumptions about how the browsing experience should be?
Perhaps by developing a browser from scratch we will have a better understanding of how the browser can be developed further?
If so, then in the long run it might be better to start from scratch.
@aral check history of Cliqz. They started as extension to develop browser (ff fork) to reach search engine. Many, many talented engineers and political contacts to highlight value of EU based solutions. It's full colour story: Dark abyss of financial background, wrong decisions but also interesting story about privacy. Next to lecture you will reach ppl from Mozilla land ;)
@aral what's your pitch though?
* Ignore third party requests entirely
* Start an arms race to block all tracking
* Encourage websites to move away from using third party tracking links, and then remove them
Because the third option still sounds positive to me.
@aral I'm with you almost all the way; right up until the "law that requires specific named software to be installed on countless computers". That's a security timebomb if I ever saw one.
would be nice if you support development and raising awareness in public opinion
also nice if you would make it possible to make a clean net-adress-space (don't know if that is technically possible or senseful) where #no_dark_patterns and #no_excessive_cookies are used #httpc-c_as_clean
@aral let away the "must be included in all operating systems made available in the EU" and replace it with something like "must be Installed as Default browser on every Work computer of the public administration" in that way System maintainers does not have to worry about that specific software but the Administration has a high interest for this to be the best possible Browser.
That would be amazing! Could it be worth a try to create some kind of petition, collect signatures and send them to the EU?
(As I said, the problem isn’t technical. I can fork Firefox in the next minute. And many forks exist. This is about building a browser for the commons from the commons. For that we need an independent organisation funded from the commons. That’s the challenge here.)
@aral Doesn't "web browser that mustbe included in all operating systems" mean that making a GNU/Linux distribution that have other web browser preinstalled or no browser will be illegal? Even on command-line only systems running on servers or embedded devices? And mobile phones? Doesn't it break down sense of free software, take away freedom of choice and make a new, law-enforced web browser monopoly?
@anedroid It can very easily be worded so that it applies only to commercial operating systems to ENSURE that a free and open browser that protects freedom is included by default.
@aral What about generalizing enforcement to any free (libre) web browser, that is a web browser which respect user's freedom and privacy, and your browser would be just a recommendation, kind of standard to give an example for other competetive browsers how they should work and display web pages? I propose a statement that each web browser used in EU schools and government must meet the following conditions:
1. fit the FSF's definition of free software (best if licenced under copyleft license such as GPL3+)
2. does not contain neither binary blobs (eg. DRM) nor software designed to download them
3. does not recommend installing non-free addons or other non-free software
4. by default does not put restrictions on viewing pages, downloading files and installing addons
5. does not depends on centralized services (like Firefox sync)
6. use open web standards
What do think about it?
7. does not collect usage data, statistics, nor send them to any servers. Anonymous usage statistics can be implemented for a development purposes as a completely separate addon licensed under free software license, that is not included or suggested to install in the official builds.
My intention is to web browser not send any data to its developers or 3rd parties, unless the user want to help improve that browser and install the extension that will send usage data. I've written "not suggested to install" because I don't want the browser ask the user to install that extension, like Reddit does with their mobile app. Ideally, if browser itself does not send any requests until you open a web page or start typing search terms if autocomplete is enabled.
Why should the EU support the creation of another browser, funded by taxpayer money? It is a lot cheaper to regulate existing browsers. The "digital identity framework" is a current example:
This is my personal Mastodon.