IPFS is 6 years old and major browsers still refusing to support it.

Imagine if the WWW was six years old (1997) and all the major browsers were like

> nah, just gonna continue supporting FTP and gopher, not this newfangled WWW thing

> but hey, we did, in collaboration with AOL, implement special support for their dialup site in our browser

@joeyh Browsers could have supported various p2p address systems over the last 15 years. But they didn't. My guess is that there isn't a lot of advertising revenue to be had on i2p or IPFS.


@bob @joeyh But given how Mozilla *claims* it's trying to set itself apart from Chrome as a privacy-oriented browser, what the heck why *not*

· · Web · 3 · 3 · 4

@bob @joeyh (Okay yes IPFS does not deliver privacy, stuff needs to be layered on top. But still, within the same line of arguments.)

@cwebber @bob @joeyh am i right in supposing that the ability to get more stuff p2p and bypassing centralized official servers with whatever they might be using to track stuff would also contribute to privacy?


it's not their access to the data

it's their access to the metadata from our access to the data

@cwebber @bob @joeyh

@cwebber @bob @joeyh afaik Mozilla development is all (or nearly all) ultimately funded by Google. Would Google be able to do the same indexing and targeted ads on IPFS, particularly where they don't have much of a handle on DNS lookups? It doesn't seem very likely. So I wouldn't expect Mozilla to adopt anything which potentially degrades Google's revenue.

@bob @cwebber @joeyh I think Google would be able to index IPFS as readily as they do HTTP! They merely need a good place(s) to start crawling.

It's all publically published information!

@alcinnz @bob @cwebber @joeyh Maybe so, although they wouldn't get the DNS lookups. I think IPFS is only static content, so no modification of pages based on targeting.

@bob @alcinnz @cwebber @joeyh IPFS content is immutable ... but you can run JavaScript which rewrites / modifies what is actually displayed in a browser. So it’s not like you’re necessarily browsing individual HTML files.

@bmann @bob @cwebber @joeyh Yeah, in this situation I'd have to guess that Google would want to ask such websites to embed HTTP iframes like they have for HTTP sites.

Not something the existing IPFS community would be very keen on, but they're not the ones Google's profitting from.

@sl007 @alcinnz @bob @cwebber @joeyh yeah. Either way the content is immutable, I was just trying to point out that personalization and content rewriting can happen at the front end JS layer.

“Native” IPFS browsing isn’t really a thing, although Brave’s IPFS:// could make it more of a thing.

@bmann @bob @alcinnz @cwebber @joeyh
Or just use IPNS which gives you a name who's reference can be changed to point at new roots of the content tree giving you both the directory (that a search engine needs) and a mutation-like operation.

@cwebber @joeyh Current browsers seem to be intent on removing support for protocols (eariler Gopher, recently FTP), and only adding protocols that increase surveillance opportunities (Device enumeration? Web bluetooth? Really?).

The only browser that does support IPFS is basically Chromium + ads as a means to milk people's attention for magic beans (cryptocurrency) so it doesn't count. Software being a means to an end that doesn't involve serving users is a red flag.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!