Hacker News Reader

Comment by saubeidl | Hacker News Reader

The "real" fix would be for Mozilla to become an actual proper non-profit entity.

Maybe the EU can buy it and maintain the browser as a critical piece of infrastructure, the same way roads etc are.

> the same way roads etc are

Roads are also a model of corruption and inefficiency, fully captured by private actors (in Europe, Vinci etc). And I think there's no way around it past some size, but that might not be the direction we wish for Firefox.

In the US, road construction is actually pretty competitive. I'm sure there's some corruption, but I think it's done pretty well overall.

The following study lists the U.S. as having "moderate to high corruption" in road construction industries:

https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321

The abstract out rights says it's just using a PPP adjusted price vs quality measurement not actually studying real measurable corruption just their arms length proxy measurement. All that really shows is the US gets crappier product for the 'same' money (PPP comparisons are really squishy).

And google is full of examples such as the following:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/construction-company...

Those are much better to point to, I wasn't saying there isn't any corruption more that the study is a bad measure of that issue.

The way I see it, one is quantifying bounds on the scale of the other. Both are relevant.

Yes, we know. We are not saying "privatize the browser" because as you rightly pointed out, privatisation is a guaranteed route to the utmost corruption.

> Maybe the EU can buy it

Thank you but I don’t think the EU is a good steward. Look how much it spent in funding startups across Europe, and what little we have for it. Look at the decision-making in the EU stack.

Sweden or the Netherlands should buy it. The EU, no.

Ugh please no, the first thing they would integrate is mandatory censorship of sites they don't like because of "hate speech".

Been saying that for years but it's never been a popular opinion. For one thing people solidly blame the EU for those awful cookie banners -- and I think those cookie banners broke down any resistance to web sites popping up modals that cover up other modals all asking for your email..

The EU didn't force the banners. They restricted opt-out data collection without consent, which is a good thing to do. The banners is malicious compliance.

The banners is malicious compliance.

That's true, but I'm still going to blame the EU. The nag screens were absolutely a predictable response, and if the regulators didn't spend half an hour thinking about unscrupulous data marketers would react to the regulations, then they are bad at their jobs. And even after that, they've had years to fix the regulations and haven't done so.

Consent for privacy is a broken model. It needs to be "Respect DNT or go to directly to jail, do not pass Go" It's a predictable result and if the EU is not "consenting" with it they should change the law.

> It needs to be [heavy-handed reprimands]

What is the realistic chance for such a regulation to pass all hurdles before being signed/coming into effect?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com