kbal

I spent a small moment wondering whether or not this was the real Olga Loiek in the video, but I guess the heuristic that says the real one is probably the one who’s not telling you how great China is or which brand of makeup to buy still works for now.

Did they change the headline, or did you come up with the more click-baity one just for us?

I would not blame this on the new CEO unless there’s some evidence to support it. Wanting to incorporate more ads into the browser is one of the things the previous CEO was known for, and maybe that brilliant idea being met with hostility was one of the things that persuaded her to depart from the role. Whatever this new feature was to be, it most likely had its origins during her tenure.

It seems highly likely that you have mischaracterized the meaning of browser.shopping.experience2023.ads.userEnabled but it doesn’t matter. The mere existence of browser.shopping.experience2023.ads.userEnabled is damning enough on its own.

That’s not the difference between this and the usual kind of enshittification. The users are one side, the advertisers (and google) are the other. Nothing unusual there. The difference is that this time it’s driven by desperate grasping at straws, rather than barefaced greed.

The Reg is not a USA-based publication. There are an abundance of non-Mozilla sources on this topic, some of which it links to. Mozilla is not some sinister conspiracy. I don’t know what motivates your crusade against them. Possibly the same kind of disinformation that some of the more optimistic eIDAS proponents hope it can somehow prevent.

The Register has also covered it recently and specifically talks about the “2.0” version.

Nothing much is new since then so far as I know. Here’s more recent coverage from the EFF.

Edit: Further web browsing turns up the latest open letter which has signatures from “552 scientists and researchers from 42 countries, as well as numerous NGOs.”

Some people want to legally compel your web browser to trust ssl cert authorities blessed by national governments, even if they become untrustworthy.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/cybersecurity/news/internet-leaders-concern-over-revised-article-on-web-authentication/

EU trilogue answer to mozilla

That link is not to an EU trilogue as I gather the term is normally used. It is to some kind of lobbyist group representing industry participants who presumably stand to profit in some way from the legislation as proposed. It is full of disingenuous nonsense such as “Mozilla already accepts QWACS — so how can Article 45.2 be a problem for Mozilla?” It completely ignores the substance of Mozilla’s complaint.

There is no need for problematic legislation interfering with everyone’s web browsers in order to get them to accept these cert authorities: The makers of web browsers will absolutely be happy to do so, as long as they are not used for anything nefarious. If this is the best that “European Signature Dialog” can come up with, all it demonstrates is that there is absolutely no reason not to make the changes that Mozilla and others call for.

The comment about the lack of culture coming out of Russia and the suggestion that whatever you had in mind would be antithetical to “an open and free Internet” makes it look to me like you were proposing that Russia somehow being completely disconnected from the net would be no great loss. If that’s not what you were proposing, what on earth did you mean?

The vast majority of Russian citizens are good people, you can chat with many of them on the fediverse to find out for yourself if you want to, and if you think that cutting them off from all communication with the outside world would help in any way you’re out of your mind.