They are controlled opposition at best, and are completely ideologically possessed and controlled by politics at this point.
They are controlled opposition at best, and are completely ideologically possessed and controlled by politics at this point.
This might just be me showing my ignorance, but for the common person to be able to stand a chance of writing a full browser that people want to use, we will have to create something new that overlays or subverts the WWW portion of the internet. The current system of RFC's and even knowing which ones we acknowledge and which ones we silently dont, is so byzantine that someone born today could spend the next 30 years of their life trying and they won't be able to make a browser and keep up with web standards and expectations. This here is a big reason why only big and wasteful tech juggernauts can do this.
Im old enough to remember the birth of the WWW, and I never thought things would or even could get this good and bad at the same time. This web needs to be taken out behind the barn so we can think about something new, and maybe this time protect it at all costs.
Lynx does not have any of that
If you encounter a website that does not work in Lynx, complain to the website admin
Cool, let me go submit 5,000,000 complaints to a few megacorporations real quick
When you consider browser engines, you can use Blink (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera), WebKit (right now, Safari and Blink only?), or Gecko (Firefox, LibreWolf, others?). I would suggest just supporting anything other than Blink if you want competition. Firefox isn't the only alternative. At least with WebKit there's someone who isn't Google who wants to make changes that won't fill their engine with ads.
It also applies to Chromium forks like ungoogled-chromium.
What now? I'm already using Safari but it's not cross-platform.
Only half-serious. If web developers hadn't totally drunk the Goog-Aid and went with 100% JS SPAs when forms and static content would do, we would certainly have more usable browsers and sites.
I think it behooves people to be precise and explicit when they accuse a large non-profit (with a wholly owned corporate subsidiary) of being "controlled opposition."