Skip to content

Comment on Google Chrome's plan to limit ad blocking extensions kicks off next weekparent

Comments

Firefox tagged along after Safari put out an insulting piece trumpeting how much better they were for not implementing a bunch of web APIs. Lacking good links so far but here's this, https://usefulangle.com/web-updates/post/80/firefox-decines-...

It really struck a bad chord for me. Rather than update your permissions model or consider how best to implement, being a browser that simply won't do WebUSB or WebMIDI or half the sensor APIs is an awful thing to me. I know a lot of people don't feel like those add value to them personally, but as someone who likes and believes in the web, the hard-line we're-against-it bandwagon-joining stance was disgusting to see, from a company I had until then trusted & thought was able to navigate complex situations.

Firefox has most of these implemented now. Which is great. As a Linux user, I used to never be able to update most of my consumer devices. But because of WebUSB, a good number now have web updaters, and I also am not scared these companies are installing a bunch of spyware/adware just to update the appliance firmware.

WebUSB and WebBluetooth really are amazing, and are one of the few reasons I occasionally fire up Chrome.

I don't get the objection either: Unlike for e.g. notification access (which is frequently abused and which Firefox does implement!), I can't imagine websites demanding USB access in exchange for, I don't know – discount codes?

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.