1. 5
  1. 3

    Facebook is on the list of supporters. Strong whiff of astroturf.

    Edit apparently the publisher is this outfit: https://webfoundation.org/about/. I retract my accusation of astroturfing, and substitute “like the UN: well-meaning and without any real power”.

    1. 4

      Indeed, it feels like bluewashing to me, at least for the commercial organisations. Some of these companies are known for the internet.org project in Africa, which only included restricted internet access to some services, thereby violating net neutrality. Which I can totally understand from their business model, but combined with their commitment to this initiative it’s hypocrite imho.

    2. 2
      1. The fact that the web needs “saving” every few years or so seems like a serious design flaw.

      2. Why does an informational site need to set cookies? Just show me the text.

      1. 1

        seems like a serious design flaw

        Yes. The way it was built was not with any security in mind. A lot has been added later, such as TLS and all kinds of HTTP headers. It’s slowly improving, but steady. I think.

        1. 2

          I don’t think baking in encryption etc. from the beginning would have changed anything, all else being equal.

          All and every HTTP call could be via HTTPS, and we’d still have to deal with intrusive tracking implemented to more effectively serve ads.

          1. 1

            I don’t think baking in encryption etc. from the beginning would have changed anything, all else being equal.

            It would have prevented a lot of MitMs. But I agree, apart from that it doesn’t fix a lot of problems.