Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Jetpack and the Battle For the Web
snydeq writes "Mozilla Jetpack makes it so easy to filter, modify, and mash up pages that it might end up pitting developers and users against content producers in a battle for the Web, writes Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister. By allowing users to modify the behavior, presentation, and output of Web apps and pages to their liking, Jetpack gives users the ability to 'patch the server, in a sense,' McAllister writes, bringing us one step closer to a more democratic Web. Good news for developers and users; not so good for SaaS providers and media companies that have a vested interest in controlling the function, presentation, and distribution of Web-based content and apps. In other words, as Jetpack produces fruit, expect more producers to call for 'guardrails for the Internet.'"
The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.
WIPO Calls for Criminalization of Open-source Software.
Mozilla Jetpack Developers Sent to Federal Prison
New US Law Makes Receiving Content from Independent Providers Illegal
Web Surfers Must Use Government-Licensed Web Browsers
So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic? A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites). It's easy to spin it as "giving the user control back from the big bad corporations" but there are scores of good websites producing quality content that do struggle to even cover costs, let alone make a profit.
So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic?
Don't make websites that suck and the People won't have to jetpack the suck out of it.
You can't take the sky from me...
Pff. I don't pine for those days. You couldn't do half the cool shit you can do with the web now back then, and lots of those things would never have happened without commercial interests getting involved.
Keep in mind if people can't pay via their advertising, they'll likely start charging again.
Which will drive people to free sites.
Once upon a time it was possible to make a living by being the only literate person in town, reading and writing letters for people and the like. Universal literacy killed that business model.
The Web was never designed nor intended as a tool for commercial enterprises--it was intended to allow academics to share information, and however far it evolves under commercial pressure, there is not much that can be done about that fundamental aspect of its architecture. To try to use the Web, which was designed for free and open information sharing, as a tool for restricted information sales is probably going to fail.
The past decade has seen a number of successful businesses based on Web revenue models. There is no promise from anyone that those models will continue to be viable. That's what markets are like, and while it may be a pity that certain things are not available to users because there is no viable way to pay for it, we're still all better off for having the Web than not.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
They already can, and more easily if they are using Firefox by installing ad-block plus. I would of thought they could think of better examples than this to show how it can do 'useful' things.
What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.
The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).
Yeah, allowing people to manipulate what they see on their computer screen is a major blow to democracy. We shouldn't innovate or give them new tools if it threatens a profit model that is so easily broken. Protect the profit model so we can stay where we're at. I AM FINE WHERE I AM AT RIGHT NOW thank you. ~
It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads.
I doubt there will be more people killing ads via Jetpack than there are people killing ads via tools and addons like Adblock Plus. Unless doing it with Jetpack is easier, which I doubt is even possible.
(+1, Disagree)
He probably browses at 1 and didn't see the AC's post.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Sounds just like greasemonkey. Maybe greasemonkey + platypus? Mozilla ripping off its own addons now? :P I've been using modified internet for a year or so now. Its neat to be able to set the internet to match your theme... or remove annoying buttons you never use. (Examples...I have no sidebar in /. and when i click my name it redirects to my comments to check for replies rather than the annoying feed.)
This reminds me of a conversation with a friend about C++. He told me, and it was true, "I don't use C++, you can do it all in straight C." I just couldn't make him see that the fact that it's EASIER to do with all that "sugar" is a real benefit, resulting in things getting done in reality that wouldn't get done if they weren't so easy. Not everyone wants to use a hand saw to cut their wood.
Currently hooked on AMP
i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure
"What a ridiculous idea," he thought, and posted as a reply in the comments section.
Except that doesn't account for having a method (destructor) which will be called when your variable goes out of scope.
Then you have generic's on top of that.
And in c++0x, auto, lambda and rvalue refs. There a whole lot more to c++ than objects.
[Note: I program in both. & python & perl &......]
Master of Peng Shui.Ancient oriental art of Penguin Arranging)
From day one, the actual rendering (or not) of HTML was intended to be user configurable. HTML was intended to be semantic tagging, not some sort of paste-up specification. A P tag specifies a paragraph, but does not specify what the browser does with a paragraph. The default is a reasonably sane rendering, but if the user wants something else, that's their call. All of the stuff like font, etc and CSS are strong suggestions which most browsers happen to accept and follow by default.
'Content Providers' in print media cannot stop me from drawing Hitler mustaches or horns on the ads in magazines I buy and they can't stop me from wearing tinted glasses when I read them.
Television 'Content providers' cannot stop me from hitting mute, modifying my TV to display the picture upside down, or creating funny commercial mash-ups by changing channels right after the voiceover asks a question.
They'd love the right to strap us down and give us the Clockwork Orange treatment, but that's not something they can have.
Sloppy writing is a very good predictor of sloppy coding.
[citation needed]
"Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like. "
This doesn't ring true to me. Using ad blocking I only alter how *I* see people's work. I see my attention as a valuable, finite resource and most advertising does not respect that resource. Just check out IMDB, opening a popup window almost every time I click a link. So, to stop this abuse, I am taking measures.
I would rather compare this situation to wearing glasses that make advertising messages disappear. The only person on the receiving end of this is me. Nobody gets punched, including my eyeballs.
Look at how polluted our public spaces are with advertising. Reading these messages because I have no other choice (reading is automatic and I have to keep my eyes open when driving) and unconsciously repeating the written messages in my own head, with my own energy, on my own time, without consent, is unacceptable.
Anyone got a hold of a pair of theseshades?
I recommend seeing "The Century of the Self" and Carpenter's "They Live." Eye opening :)
I don't understand why you think I should need your permission to increase the size of the font displayed in my browser when I view a web page from your server. Likewise, changing colors or even radically reinventing a better (for me) CSS scheme has nothing to do with any legal rights you might accrue due to having created (or published, or bought) said content.
Can you imagine if textbook publishers tried this? "Highlighting text in this book without the publisher's permission is contrary to our purpose in publishing this work. If the author had wanted that text highlighted, it would be highlighted. Likewise, margin notes require written permission beforehand. If the author had wanted a note in the margin, one would have been printed."
He probably browses at 1 and didn't see the AC's post.
You mean the post to which he directly responded? You know that doesn't add up, right?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein