Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> To reiterate: WASM does not require you to drop down to canvas or render fonts yourself.

The fear isn't that it requires that. The fear is that it enables that.

The web is, and has been over the past two decades, in the constant state of war over control between publishers and consumers. People - and especially businesses - making pages would like to have 100% control over how the webpage/app looks and is being used. But the users would like to have some control over what they're viewing too[0].

The most widely known battle in this war is the battle for ad-blocking. The publishers want you to view lots of ads. You want just the content, without any of the ads. So far, the technology (and economics) favors the user, but it's not a given.

The balance of control on the web was always maintained by the technologies on which the web standardized on. Pure HTML, or even HTML+CSS, strongly favours the user. JavaScript tilts the balance significantly towards the publishers, as now they can (and do) generate content with code, which renders the page difficult to interpret and modify on the user end. One of the biggest complaints about Flash was how shitty the pure-Flash/mostly-Flash webpages were. That's not an intrinsic problem of Flash - this happened, because Flash gave the publishers too much control. And publishers (again, especially businesses) will use (and abuse) any control they're given.

The fear here is, that WASM against tilts the control in favour of publishing, which will lead to abuse and web becoming a much worse place for the consumers. If WASM will, by virtue of efficiency, enable publishers to embed a browser they control within the page, the publishers will use this, because this would single-handedly eliminate most ad-blocking, userscripting and scrapping efforts.

--

[0] - and the power users, like myself, would like to have 100% of that control - think of how much better the web would be if the data was always published in machine-readable format, without tons of bullshit paginations and stylistic choices to scroll and click through. For instance, when looking for current weather, I want to input my location and a time span, and get weather data. I want to be able to script that. I don't want to waste time looking at ads, pretty pictures, non-relevant text and links.

It's a big trade-off to be sure. On the one hand, I'm worried about the web becoming more closed-source and less hackable for all the reasons you've mentioned.

But on the other hand, I can't help see the enormous potential of a proper assembly language for web. Web technologies have felt like a massive hack for decades: tools designed for basic text formatting and a bit of interactivity which have been stretched in extreme ways to meet the needs of the modern web. Web applications are the most widely used software on the planet, and if you ask me it's about time developers will have the freedom to develop them in the language which makes the most sense for the task at hand rather than the only one which is available. And I am quite keen to see what kinds of new things will be possible when the ceiling is significantly raised for performance optimization.

Yeah, I feel the same sentiment you described, too. When building a web application, I'd prefer to use more powerful tools than JavaScript, and maybe a sane(r) set of libraries for user interface. There's also value in cross-compiling applications and games to web platform, because of ease of end-user deployment - for instance, games playable without explicit installation (of the game, runtime, and support libraries).

So I have really mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I appreciate the power WASM gives. On the other hand, I don't trust the majority of companies on the web to use that power responsibly.

> For instance, when looking for current weather, I want to input my location and a time span, and get weather data. I want to be able to script that. I don't want to waste time looking at ads, pretty pictures, non-relevant text and links.

I feel the same way. But those ads are there because that's the entire business model of people putting weather data out there for free. On most free sites, ads aren't just a sideshow, they're the driving engine. Take away the ads, and there goes the business model.

What we need is some other way to pay for the weather data. Maybe this could be a service provided by your ISP, like NTP or DNS. Or some third party subscription service. Or maybe even taxpayer funded. But if you're using a service that relies on ads as their revenue model, then expect to put up with ads. They're part of the deal.

Micropayments is another possible solution that comes to mind. Say, pay one tenth of a penny every time you want to look at weather data. Assuming that we can come up with something that works for insignificant amounts and is fast, cheap, and secure to transact. If that is the case, you would just have to send a confirmation token with your first HTTP GET request to access a website with no ads. Competition would hopefully drive prices down and quality up.

That's a fair point, and a prelude to a much larger discussion about business models on the web. Suffice it to say, I'd happily accept some deal for compensating the data provider - be it ads, micropayments, or even regular subscriptions - if the resulting data was available in a) machine-readable form, and b) decluttered form on the webpage, so that I could read it efficiently (possibly with support of userscripts/userstyles). As a bonus, such sensible data display will save the provider's bandwidth costs, as on the typical site, 90+% of transferred bytes are not part of the content.

The web used to exist without ads, and it was more functional and useable for users. This idea that we need ads to fund webpages has always been nonsense. They are not at all part of the deal.

they won't abuse because of GDPR. And people are already smarter, the same tricks from the past won't repeat. Browser vendors will be able to easily block too heavy WASM programs, for example which run too long. Or new laws will enforce that. [edit]: Or even very heavy WASM apps will require to be signed by certificate provider, otherwise user will be warned about risks. Just like HTTP vs HTTPS.

Javascript enables that too and some people do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com