Appreciate someone with technical knowledge to comment on the stated view that creation of new browsers are not required. Looks like they are having a go at MS
There isn’t anything substantial there to critique. They aren’t building a browser, so they say it isn’t necessary.
Oddly they say “We are working at a base protocol level. We are not reliant on any other platform or API. By staying self reliant we know we are in control of our future.” But then say they are sticking with the existing Web (http, dns etc).
So how can they avoid the many problems with blocking and censorship, domain hijacking, tracking, surveillance etc?
After reading those claims and that they are sticking with both https and standard browsers I’d like to see them go through the Things that would never happen on SAFE Network post and explain which they protect against and explain how.
If you allow https in the browser you expose users to a raft of privacy risks and attacks. If, and I can’t be sure this is true, they rely on Google and the Web DNS it just gets worse. They seem to say that, but it’s hard to believe while at the same time making those claims.
The claim about being independent of external platforms is also empty without any specific on who might not be. Its true of SAFEnetwork certainly, and maybe also for Substratum (although the browser is a platform, so not really), but so what - who isn’t?
Thanks happy being. There is so much fud in the cryptoworld that ordinary (no techos) are easily sucked in. Boy is there a need for independent critical analysis in this space, that asks the hard questions