What makes it different from Servo and Ladybird? How far along is it? Also regarding long term sustainability, is it backed by an organization that can maintain funding for development?

Bill McKibben is based.

Bold of you to assume a lemmy user would drive

I wonder if this has anything to do with the Google ad monopoly case?

Is this loss?

I believe in both hydrogen and nuclear power… it’s called the sun

How are those old chrome and safari versions still so prevailing?

People who kids/grandkids setup their computers possibly?

It’s arch… of course it broke 😂

ed is the true path to nirvana

MIT license 🤮

Edit: GPL 🫡

Same

The old logo made it more clear:

Repeating “tariffs never work” doesn’t make it any more true. America was founded and developed industry by using a combination of tariffs and free real estate (stolen land) to fund development of the internal US economy. And it worked. Same with Canada’s National Policy in the 1800s.

Yes. That is correct.

That’s WebKit… so basically Safari lol

Error 451: Web Integrity API Failure. Please open in Chrome.

I’m all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don’t think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.

How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side.

Probably under WCAG Principle 4: “Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.” If we’re treating ad blocking as an assistive technology, purposely attempting to break an assistive technology would run counter to that principle, much in the same way that purposefully breaking a screen reader would (although, it should go with out saying, purposefully breaking screen readability is much worse).

I’m not sure if that’s changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.

I’m wondering if legal action is something that could be done on a state by state basis starting with California (which conveniently is where Google is headquartered) or if the case could be made that Youtube is used to stream live events and those events should count as a physical nexus under the ADA.

Please see my response above which addresses your points using case law.

Did you really just compare accommodations for ADHD to “emotional support alligators?”

• Here is a case establishing precedent that ADHD is a disability under the ADA.

• Here is another

• Here is the DOJs website which lists case precedent for the requirement of Title III entities (private businesses open to the public) to have accessible websites).

I am not a lawyer, but there is precedent for ADHD to be covered under the ADA and precedent that it (meaning the ADA) applies to websites for private businesses.

Edit: ADHD fits the definition of a disability as defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA, specifically:

• 1a: it’s a mental impairment
• 2a1: it affects: learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
• 3B: it’s not transitory/lasts longer than 6 months

Edit 2: a lawyer could argue that adblocking is an assistive technology for people with ADHD. If a person is looking at a tutorial at work and is inundated with ads that effect their performance at work that they can not block using an adblocker, that is denying a person with a disability as (defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA) the full and equal (to a person who is neurotypical and can more easily not get distracted) use of a title III entities service.

deleted by creator