Slashdot Mirror
Is Google's Promotion of HTTPS Misguided? (this.how)
Long-time software guru Dave Winer is criticizing Google's plans to deprecate HTTP (by, for example, penalizing sites that use HTTP instead of HTTPS in search results and flagging them as "insecure" in Chrome). Winer writes:
A lot of the web consists of archives. Files put in places that no one maintains. They just work. There's no one there to do the work that Google wants all sites to do. And some people have large numbers of domains and sub-domains hosted on all kinds of software Google never thought about. Places where the work required to convert wouldn't be justified by the possible benefit. The reason there's so much diversity is that the web is an open thing, it was never owned....
If Google succeeds, it will make a lot of the web's history inaccessible. People put stuff on the web precisely so it would be preserved over time. That's why it's important that no one has the power to change what the web is. It's like a massive book burning, at a much bigger scale than ever done before.
"Many of these sites don't collect user data or provide user interaction," adds Slashdot reader saccade.com, "so the 'risks' of not using HTTPS are irrelevant." And Winer summarizes his position in three points.
If Google succeeds, it will make a lot of the web's history inaccessible. People put stuff on the web precisely so it would be preserved over time. That's why it's important that no one has the power to change what the web is. It's like a massive book burning, at a much bigger scale than ever done before.
"Many of these sites don't collect user data or provide user interaction," adds Slashdot reader saccade.com, "so the 'risks' of not using HTTPS are irrelevant." And Winer summarizes his position in three points.
- The web is an open platform, not a corporate platform.
- It is defined by its stability. 25-plus years and it's still going strong.
- Google is a guest on the web, as we all are. Guests don't make the rules.
"The web is a social agreement not to break things," Winer writes. "It's served us for 25 years. I don't want to give it up because a bunch of nerds at Google think they know best."
You can walk into libraries all over the world, pull a book off the shelf, and read it. Nobody maintains it; it just sits there. Some things work that way.
Just think of the lost opportunities!!
Why, with just 2 months and $200,000 we could start modernizing these "books" so that they use a proper 1px razor-thin font, a 20% contrast ratio, and nice 30% transparent pages. Another 4 months and $400k and we can upgrade them to require batteries and use AI to replace all those long paragraphs with summaries. And lastly, in just 1 year and a million dollars, we can add encryption, fingerprint readers, dynamic advertising, and pay-per-chapter so that only people with an active subscription or make use of the freemium model can read them!
Books-as-a-Service with nice modern UX, targeted advertising based on book genre, and microtransactions. Let's get started! Now, who will fund us?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Sometimes when I look for stuff that's less common I even resort to Yandex and Baidu.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.