A better title for this should have been: Opinion: Google should be removed from W3c over the Implementation of Web Environment Integrity

How would that farm karma points though? This topic keeps being reposted here over and over again.

A lot of folks here are disappointed that the toot/article is an opinion instead of news.

And I feel disappointed that we are more concerned about whether the title should be tagged as opinion instead of the content therein, which is well worth discussing. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

WEI is one of the most damaging plans that Google has put across in the near past and it is important that we should consider the different avenues of pressure that we can use, to get Google to reconsider.

The submitter was following the usual practice of using the article's title, so seem a bit harsh. Perhaps someone could repost with the title "Tolmasky proposes Google's removal from W3C", then the flaggers (who I suspect may have other, more local motivation) wouldn't have that cover.

Absolutely correct, publishing false news is acceptable as long as it fits the agenda.

This is a bit confusingly worded. From the title, I thought this was actually about Google being removed from W3C. It's just someone (granted, the guy who developed mobile Safari and CEO of RunKit) saying they should be.

Yes, the title is misleading.

> If Google can take unilateral action to fundamentally change the basic principles of the web, then the W3C is already* useless.*

Isn't this more or less Google's official stance since the founding of the WHATWG?

I feel, if the W3C had any actual power in anything web/browser related, we'd all be writing XHTML3 today.

To my knowledge, Chrome doesn't even officially implement any W3C standard - they implement the WHATWG's "HTML Living Standard" which is not influenced by the W3C at all.

(At least this was the case a decade ago. Not sure how things have developed since then, since apparently there is now is also the WICG, that develops new proposals.)

> if the W3C had any actual power in anything web/browser related

National language advisory councils around the world come in mixtures of two flavors:

  - Authoritarian: Govern the correct use of language in the country.
  - Documentarian: Maintain the record of how language evolves dynamically.

W3C never had any authoritative power.

But they do have some power by documenting and recommending what most agree on.

Chrome introducing DRM into websites makes it hard for W3C to be anything.

Somewhat misleading title IMO

I’m curious how many people are still using Chrome or Edge despite all of this nonsense?

If that’s you, please stop using Chrome.

If you only develop or test your websites in Chrome, please stop and use something else.

If you can’t stop using Chrome then how can we expect others to? Need to start somewhere.

Someone mentionned in the Mastodon thread that they have an Android phone with nothing-from-google on it. I speculate his installation is even more responsive than whatever default the product came with and I'd like to do that.

I have a terrible Vankyo Z1 table that is very slow. Where do I start?

Look at e/OS and see if it is compatible with your devices.

I'm disappointed that this isn't news, just an opinion. I doubt that Mozilla has the power to do anything though because, as far as I understand it, they depend on Google.

Unfortunately only EU and U.S. level regulation might have real power.

Chrome/Chromium has too big market share.

What is stopping them to make their new W3C if the are removed? There is a huge interest for this feature from many commercial parties, there is no denying of that.

> To use the Mastodon web application, please enable JavaScript. Alternatively, try one of the native apps for Mastodon for your platform.

yeah, no

You won't enable js on a trusted website?

Mastodon is free software.

just looking at the market share - if google would leave w3c, w3c would become irrelevant

The same market share that allows them to basically run their shenanigans without any real alternative besides Firefox (which receives hundreds of millions from Google)?

Why would Google even care about the W3C at all when they are basically a monopoly at this point? Apart of some PR and avoiding antitrust lawsuits

Instead of regulatory capture, we're witnessing increased consortium capture

Market share for what? Inflicting ads on people? Fortunately the W3C does not care (directly) about market share.

That is addressed to some degree in the linked discussion. I appreciate your thought but if you could take into account how it's already been engaged with and factor that into the discussion it would help move things forward.

Isn't W3C already made obsolete by WhatWG, run primarily by Google of course?

And if humans were reasonable Google would've been irrelevant a long time ago. I really don't understand why we're so gullible and complicit, such a waste of potential.