This is an awful, completely non bona fide piece. But I hope that by my upvoting it, people will see it and get a better understanding of the mindset that the engineers behind WEI have, and why this is all so problematic.
So, you don't like a web platform proposal
51–60 of 114 posts
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#52Blog post author here. A few clarifications: * I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this, to help the engineers contributing to it deal with clear spam & abuse cases. I wrote this post with WEI in mind, but nothing about it is specific to this proposal, and could've been applied to multiple past proposals (and probably future ones), either from Google or from other sta…
I don't believe in attacking individuals for what is a systemic issue.
> It's important to actually read and understand the proposal before objecting to it.
How do you assume that the people who criticize it didn't read it? I saw many arguments based on the proposal text. I myself read it thrice before making my first post.
> For example, WEI has nothing to do with ad-blockers or DRM (in the sense that the content itself is not restricted, unlike EME)
From what I can see, the webpage needs to return the token to the server before it decides to respond [1]. True that proposal doesn't say if the server should respond or not. But the mere possibility that the server can deny a response based on the token (or its absence) means that it will be used. How is this not DRM? And how is this not dangerous to the open web?
[1] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#53Blog post author here. A few clarifications: * I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this, to help the engineers contributing to it deal with clear spam & abuse cases. I wrote this post with WEI in mind, but nothing about it is specific to this proposal, and could've been applied to multiple past proposals (and probably future ones), either from Google or from other sta…
> I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both defend the work itself and place yourself outside of the process as a "chair." > If you're objecting to the goals of the proposal [1], it'd serve you better to outline which goals are objectionable and why Many technologists don't have the clout or sometimes t…
> Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both defend the work itself and place yourself outside of the process as a "chair."
I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community).
> But it is DRM because it can be used, in effect, like DRM. You are missing the point that most of the community sees this as DRM-like technology, with all of its warts, whether you agree with that conclusion or not.
OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM?
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#54Blog post author here. A few clarifications: * I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this, to help the engineers contributing to it deal with clear spam & abuse cases. I wrote this post with WEI in mind, but nothing about it is specific to this proposal, and could've been applied to multiple past proposals (and probably future ones), either from Google or from other sta…
Pretty deceptive to present yourself eager to discuss when you aggressively locked and closed issues where people present legitimate and well thought out concerns. If you don’t want to take responsibility for the proposal, withdraw your name from it.
> Political/ecosystem arguments are technical arguments.
No they are not. You don’t get to retcon a term just because people spotted a flaw in your argument.
Edit: I noticed you posted this while closing off the repo completely for new comments. You can’t make this up.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The listed use-cases are not what I typically see complaints about.
What I do see a lot: * This will be used to detect and block ad blockers. * Open source users can't do attestation and will get locked out of parts of the web.
These are not goals of this proposal from what I can tell. And there are indeed discussions how to avoid those negative externalities.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#56> Don't assume consensus nor finished state
If someone presents me with an document proposing their right and ability to punch me in the throat whenever they desire, it’s either, and then when I protest state that it’s ”just a joke bro”, it’s either
1. a bad joke I’m not in on
2. A real and serious proposition
Now, when the person making the proposal has a reputation for punching people in the throat, it’s very clearly not the former.
> We're all humans
No we’re not: one side is a massive corporation with a profit motive and no morals or personhood. They don’t get obfuscate their intent and escape criticism by foisting the actual submission onto some random dev. The devs in question are either implicit with this-in which case they deserve no sympathy, or they are not, and should realise they’re being used as sacrificial lambs. Neither case is reason to use kid-gloves.
> Technical grounds
This arguments is meaningless in this situation. The proposal is bad on fundamental intent grounds, technical arguments have nothing to do with it.
> Considered alternatives
Yeah here’s a considered alternative: Don’t do this. There we go, just as much justification and technical validity as the original proposal. Now, as I am reasonable, I will only accept counter arguments in the form of interpretive dance, performed in person, in 15 minutes time, in the sub-basement of my nearest Antarctic station. All other responses are rude and off topic.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#57I'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.
They recently added telemetry to the go tools. The main guy responsible for the change wrote two blog posts first. Then they kept referring to it in the GitHub issue. They were able to thus frame it as if it were an opt-in vs opt-out discussion where everyone agreed that it was obviously necessary. Real people (our peers) kept referring dissenters to the blog posts like it is the Holy Bible.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#58Blog post author here. A few clarifications: * I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this, to help the engineers contributing to it deal with clear spam & abuse cases. I wrote this post with WEI in mind, but nothing about it is specific to this proposal, and could've been applied to multiple past proposals (and probably future ones), either from Google or from other sta…
Your P.S. really shows that you are not really acting in good faith here. It might be good to take a step back and think about the reaction people are having. Consider the possibility that the problem might not be that the whole rest of the world is acting like toddlers , but rather that there is something fundamentally and objectively problematic with WEI and that the community is having a very strong negative react…
It really says something that when faced with _universal_ opposition, he still asked people to either provide “constructive” criticism or GTFO, which is just a nicer way to say “we will push forward this no matter what you say”.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#59I agreed with you, Yoav, when you posted your rant about gRPC and Chrome (because of the trailers debacle). Here was a case where Google prevented innovation at Google for unclear and selfish reasons, to the detriment of the community. You weren't wrong about how that decision was made with too few voices in the room. That decision was made in a vacuum, and Google and the community suffered. WEI is a case where you s…
I love your response!
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#60Blog post author here. A few clarifications: * I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this, to help the engineers contributing to it deal with clear spam & abuse cases. I wrote this post with WEI in mind, but nothing about it is specific to this proposal, and could've been applied to multiple past proposals (and probably future ones), either from Google or from other sta…
Do you know why this proposal is over a public repo which is not a part of any official open web group discussion? Why would anyone with legitimate concerns for unforseen consequences which would occur if the proposal or any descendants of it to turn to a standard would want to be constructive about it? Particularly considering the concern if they want to stop it on the tracks? Why would you not like to get the legal…
> Do you know why this proposal is over a public repo which is not a part of any official open web group discussion?
A typical workflow for standard proposals is: personal repo => incubation venue => official working group
This proposal is so early stage that it hasn't passed the "personal repo" phase just yet.
> Why would anyone with legitimate concerns for unforseen consequences which would occur if the proposal or any descendants of it to turn to a standard would want to be constructive about it? Particularly considering the concern if they want to stop it on the tracks?
"being constructive" doesn't mean being supportive. If the goal is objectionable and you want the work to stop, articulating why it's objectionable is your best bet at getting what you want.
> Why would you not like to get the legal related feedback, don't the legalities dictate technical constraints? Or do you think this would go on with or without being in the legal?
Actual legal concerns obviously get addressed (and doing that goes through legal counsels). But throwing "legal words" into feedback significantly increases the friction of answering it, without increasing its weight or validity. That can decrease the chances of it getting addressed.