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.'"

Comments

"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[abigsmurf]

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.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[geekoid]

So?
The internet is designed to allow the user to control how they view content. That is what it does. Don't come whining becasue some people chose to work in that medium.

It's like that guy that buys a house near an airport and then complains the planes are loud. Maybe you should ahve chosen a different medium.

Just becasue some one writes a book, doesn't man I can rearrange the words in the copy I bought, and just becasue you create a website doesn't mean I can change how I want to view it,

It's like complaining becasue someone can change the tint on their TV and ruin the artistic vision of the director.
It is democratic becasue it gives the power to the people. More specifically, it's a Direct Democracy where the people make the decisions. In this case, the decision how they wish to view something.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[drinkypoo]

A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites).

The web server provides you with numerous tools to control how the user receives your content. How they view it after that is not up to you, and never has been.

power to the people

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Revolution

[RudeIota]

The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.

Regardless of whether or not it is not more than half of web surfers, plenty of people use it. In fact, the percentage is so large, 'most' is moot. Most surveys show at least 30% market share.

Also, the number of FF users isn't worth bringing up anyhow - This article in no way says, "Teh Interwebs as we know it are ovur!". TFA simply says that this is a good STEP toward a more democratic web, although the TFS certainly sensationalized it quite a bit.

Numbers really don't matter here. What *does* matter though, is the idea that Jetpack has indirectly brought with it -- more control over web content. This will undoubtedly spread to other browsers in the form of plugins and such, making browser market share irrelevant.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[radtea]

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.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[sjames]

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.