Live data from Hacker News

A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

protocol.com

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#71
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would otherwise chaste people shout "FUCK!!" when they stub their toe? Because in a moment of pain, people are emotional and inarticulate. Obviously. Vulgarity serves many purposes, but the fact that the words can be used almost anywhere, in almost any grammatical form, makes them substitutes for the more specific expressions that they replace. "Vulgarity is often just a verbal tic for the inarticulate." (Empha…

You are right, audience is everything. I liked the original comment and wouldn't change a word of it. Not every statement is to be boiled down to intellectual delivery devoid of emotion. We're expressly humans, not computers. The idea that "Intelligent people resist emotional persuasion, or at least try to." is for the consumer to apply, when and how they like. Communication with vulgarity is not to make you emotiona…

> Depending on your perceived relationship with the poster you may feel something yourself.

Exactly. And unless you have a bias toward agreement, or you are already spun up like the poster, a stranger's dissonant communication style is more likely to be alienating than persuasive.

And re: knowing one's audience, the consensus position seems to be that I do not, here and now. So I concede the issue, in this context at least! Alas. :)

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that politeness is inherently racist, but it has been used as a tool of racial suppression, and as a way of keeping itinerants in line https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2006/sept...

The segregated South was a culture of total racial oppression. So yes every aspect of the culture reflected and reinforced racial oppression, all backed by the threat (or reality) of violence. This doesn't cast doubt on the value of politeness, any more than it casts doubt on the value of signs, schools, water fountains, restaurants, or laws.

It shouldn't cast doubt on the value of politeness, but it does cast doubt on its application and where and why it is appropriate. Are you saying that this legacy has not cast any shadows on modern culture?

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#73
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agree with the sentiment but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message.. centuries of privacy rights are drained and drowning right now IMO

> but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message Actually vulgarity was invented (and has historically been used) to improve the weight of such messages. It works too: "Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception." [1] Can…

It helps IMHO to use it sparingly for emphasis, rather than just being a general potty mouth.

A calm well spoken person grabs a lot of positive attention with an F-bomb carefully dropped. The step out of character alerts people that something must be serious.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#74
post #53
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message Actually vulgarity was invented (and has historically been used) to improve the weight of such messages. It works too: "Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception." [1] Can…

They used a survey of 276 people and then examined some Facebook surveys about "those who used more profanity were also more likely to use language patterns that have been shown in previous research to be related to honesty, such as using pronouns like "I" and "me"." I don't disagree with you but that study seems like fucking bullshit.

>> don't disagree with you but that study seems like fucking bullshit.

Using the tactic you disagree with to drive your point home. Well played.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#75

> One of Google's proposed standards — Federated Learning of Cohorts, or FLoC for short — would eliminate the ability for advertisers to track specific users' web behavior with cookies. No, Floc will not "eliminate the ability for advertisers to track specific users with cookies", the phase out of third party cookies on Chrome will do that, Google needs something to replace the current tracking method for his ad busi…

[deleted]

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#76
post #54
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Googles business is advertising.. take away their ad revenue and see what happens to them.

Yes, but their business is search advertising. You can get really good targeting with just 1st party data (what the current user has searched for). That's completely different from display advertising. For most sites on the web there's not enough information about a user's interests on that site alone to get a lot of different bidders for the ad slot. Fewer bidders generally means the a list auction price, so less mo…

It's expensive to collect, maintain and collate data yet they're making a profit on it. If they didn't want the data they wouldn't collect the data.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#77
post #38

It's easy to mock the pettiness of all parties described here, and it's common for people on this forum to take absolutist stances with regards to privacy/advertising, but it's also important to recognize that these arguments will actually define the future of the internet for the average user. There are trillion dollar companies on both sides of the argument, and their eventual compromise will establish the defaults…

> Increasing privacy decreases competitions, strengthening the Big Tech companies that engage with users at the platform/browser/OS/hardware level. What about products that people actually pay for directly instead of products that are "free" but funded under the table through surveillance and manipulation? Why can't those compete just fine?

Would be nice but they'd have to compete as beggars on gated app stores. Face it, big tech is robber baron territory.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#78
post #5

I don't care how big this man's business is, Rosewell is a parasite bent on preserving the established order of datamining the shit out of everyone for his own personal profit. He is gumming up the works with pointless philosophical bloviating, using the anti-big-tech argument as a cudgel of convenience for bludgeoning a nascent privacy movement that has taken decades to get off the ground. I've sat in a large audien…

He simply follows the steps of much bigger parasites, the ones who developed complex methods to soothe the itching, or even to mimicry as “giant tech companies”.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#79

It's easy to mock the pettiness of all parties described here, and it's common for people on this forum to take absolutist stances with regards to privacy/advertising, but it's also important to recognize that these arguments will actually define the future of the internet for the average user. There are trillion dollar companies on both sides of the argument, and their eventual compromise will establish the defaults…

Users pick browsers and their OS. They don't pick the latest iteration of Bonsai Buddy.
Post reply on HN