@lanodan @thatbrickster
>whatever random people use on their *own computer* doesn't matters.
Indeed. But whatever the 5 billions of people have does. Because human decision making is more or less tied to what is the most "successful" and success is measured by people by observing what is the most common thing that doesn't harm other people directly.

>Like using Firedfox isn't going to make some GNU projects stop using GitHub.
That would be ridiculous of course.
But it lets say suddenly 90% of the market share went to pseudo OS web browsers like Icecat or Firefox then the web would change radically as suddenly billions of scams apps/website, malware etc... wouldn't work.
The same would happen if uMatrix and shelterJS would also have that market share.

Same goes with OSs if suddenly the market share would sift to any of the FSF approved distribution then the market would shreeeek in agony as the scammers and hoarders would loose/see their profits go elsewhere, even education would be impacted as they'll have to follow their logic of "we're teaching/training depending on what the markets asks".

>And the problem of things like the web always was that W3C and related is awful when it comes to governance,
They aren't a gov, they aren't a corporation who can make rainfall happen either. They don't have a monopoly on violence and sadly can't send death squads to google&co if they are transgressing the web standards.

For example if they had said that webDMR wouldn't have been standardized then all web browsers would have implemented them anyway because of the "market demand" which is coincidentally produced by the same people who also make the current dominant browser.

You can't negotiate with these sociopath sadly, we're almost back to the IE days but with google tbh.

>and that's not on users
It's still a bit on users tho. As all is defined by market according to banks/silicon valley/govs etc...

>that's on web engine developers and their organisations.
That is also correct.