I think mozilla succinctly explained the flaw in the proposal. Introducing technology to make the lives of the majority better is great, but if the necessary side-effect is to permanently exclude a minority of people from the internet, then that isn’t cool.
I would argue it doesn’t even make anyone’s life better, except google and advertiders’
agreed. and well said, Mozilla:
This means that no single party decides which form-factors, devices, operating systems, and browsers may access the Web. It gives people more choices, and thus more avenues to overcome personal obstacles to access.
Unfortunately, I bet it’s going to end up exactly like it did with WC3 EME, as linked in the 2014 article mentioned few comments after the one you linked:
I know of people recommending Chrome (not Chromium) because it has Flash Player natively incorporated, so you no longer have to install it separately.
This serves to prove that the majority of users doesn’t know about either the technical or ethical differences in the software they are using.You may also think of the pirated software the are using,but this is a different matter. Ignoring this marketshare goes against Mozilla’s idea of a web available to everyone, not to mention that Firefox is no longer the most used browser as it used to be a a few years ago and it is therefore forced to comply with this kind of requests.
