Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So, you don't like a web platform proposal

blog.yoav.ws

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#31

Post by wcerfgba »

creatonez wrote: post #27

The section, "Don't assume a hidden agenda", is a rather irrelevant response to the outrage, because the agenda we don't like is written out in the proposal. It's not hidden, it's rather transparent and it's the dystopian nightmare we want to avoid. From the proposal: > Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. This trust may assume that the client environment is honest about certain…

Exactly, the agenda is everything. It's very difficult to convince a megacorp to act against its profit motive. The proposal exists within a cultural and economic context, you can't just ignore that.

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#32

Post by realusername »

creatonez wrote: post #27

The section, "Don't assume a hidden agenda", is a rather irrelevant response to the outrage, because the agenda we don't like is written out in the proposal. It's not hidden, it's rather transparent and it's the dystopian nightmare we want to avoid. From the proposal: > Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. This trust may assume that the client environment is honest about certain…

The last one is especially hilarious since ads are the most common vector to install malware.

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#33

Post by goku12 »

charcircuit wrote: post #18
tgma wrote: post #3

While I fully understand the feeling of the author being a Googler doing their job, being a cog in the machine and launching something to advance their promo case, would be visibly upset that people who actually care about the outcome are actively fighting their project, I also think from the users' perspective, dealing with a powerful corporation, it is the right thing to do to bury this type of danger as soon as po…

>The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable It is essentially just asking for constructive feedback. When people just say not to do it, insult the author, or make assumptions about the proposal that aren't true the comments are not actionable. Even if an issue is political you can still make a constructive argument on th…

Here's how they respond to 'constructive arguments': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36855429 . Especially this part: https://danshumway.com/blog/chrome-autoplay/

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#34

Post by geocar »

serial_dev wrote: post #6

I'm sorry, but Occams razor tells me that Google proposed this to further strengthen their monopoly on the web browser market and make sure their ads and tracking cannot be avoided.

Seriously. When someone tells you that they don't have a hidden agenda, it means they absolutely have a hidden agenda. Normal people don't say that.

> and make sure their ads and tracking cannot be avoided.

Exactly. Their ads.

They are totally fine with people applying content filters for other companies.

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#35

Post by lozenge »

creatonez wrote: post #27

The section, "Don't assume a hidden agenda", is a rather irrelevant response to the outrage, because the agenda we don't like is written out in the proposal. It's not hidden, it's rather transparent and it's the dystopian nightmare we want to avoid. From the proposal: > Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. This trust may assume that the client environment is honest about certain…

The advice is relevant then. You can argue about the stated agenda and use cases instead of assuming a hidden one.

Whether there is a hidden agenda or not, the authors of the spec can just reply, "that isn't the agenda" and ignore everything in your comment that followed from it.

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#36

Post by charcircuit »

jiggawatts wrote: post #22
sgammon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you sign your own certificates? Whether people trust those is a different story. WAI is different because it breaks abstraction by asserting based on details which are otherwise invisible to the server.

> Can't you sign your own certificates? Self-signed certificates are banned in HTTP/2 onwards, which is really irritating when it is used for internal server-to-server communications. You have to set up a Root CA certificate and use that to sign a second certificate. It's the same thing but with extra steps.

I've never had an issue using HTTP/2 with a self signed cert.

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#37

Post by Zandikar »

I take real issue with their occams razor comment under "Don't assume a hidden agenda" [0]

> it's often safe to assume that Occam's razor is applicable and the reason it is being proposed is that the team proposing it is trying to tackle the use cases the proposal handles

Just because something is initially conceived innocently and in response to a purely technical problem does not mean it wont be co-opted by the parent company that has a track record of establishing market hegemonies and anti-competitive practices. Humans didn't split the atom because we wanted to vaporize cities, we were merely curious about the "technical" fabric of reality as a natural pursuit of science. Furthermore, just because you're tasked with working on the technical problems, doesn't mean that technical problems are the only aspects that can or should be considered. It's plain as day how this will have non technical implications, and asserting those should be ignored for any reason - but especially in this context - is frankly insulting.

In other words, this seems to be a textbook case of "they were too preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to ask if they should."

> To be more concrete and clear, personal attacks or threats addressed at the folks working on the platform are not OK

We agree on that at least.

[0]: https://blog.yoav.ws/posts/web_platform_change_you_do_not_li...

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#38

Post by creatonez »

lozenge wrote: post #35
creatonez wrote: post #27

The section, "Don't assume a hidden agenda", is a rather irrelevant response to the outrage, because the agenda we don't like is written out in the proposal. It's not hidden, it's rather transparent and it's the dystopian nightmare we want to avoid. From the proposal: > Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. This trust may assume that the client environment is honest about certain…

The advice is relevant then. You can argue about the stated agenda and use cases instead of assuming a hidden one. Whether there is a hidden agenda or not, the authors of the spec can just reply, "that isn't the agenda" and ignore everything in your comment that followed from it.

As far as I can tell, the criticism against the proposal was mostly surrounding the clearly stated goals of the proposal, such as protecting intellectual property. Didn't see much wild speculation, even though the internet is usually filled to the brim with it. So this advice as general advice makes sense, but is odd as a response to this situation.

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#39

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

mattlondon wrote: post #25
rtpg wrote: post #15

Since this is here and there is a point made about discussing the technical merits of [0]... can someone explain to me how the WEI stuff isn't easily "faked" by scrapers and the like? I could see this being used in a similar way to user agents (sometimes helpful when working on bugs and fixing them on minor platforms!), but I'm really struggling to see the overall value-add here. I get the politics aspect of it (I th…

I believe the idea is that an independent third party will cryptographically sign something to attest that the client is legit. So you can't fake that unless you have the third party's private key. If course the question is then, how does the attestation third party ensure you are sending it real information? I've not bothered to read the proposal because I don't care, but I suspect it will require client-side plugin…

There are aimbots for all modern games even though the developers have invested in anti-cheat

Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal

#40

Post by lozenge »

charcircuit wrote: post #29
scrollaway wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard). You know, if your government body of choice came up with a terrible idea in a draft bill and enraged the population, it would not be appropriate for them to go on TV and say “the population should offer constructive criticism in the form of legal arguments”. So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to han…

>It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard). Yes, and you can see how many people are being ignored. The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization. >So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry? For example, people may think coming up with legal arguments ma…

Can you provide an example of feedback that hasn't been ignored?
Post reply on HN