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

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by lozenge »

yoavweiss_ wrote: post #53
sgammon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There are 11 issues on the repo matching a search for "DRM".

Please list all the comments with the word "DRM" you read, and justify any you skipped.

Then we can write an explanation meeting your requirements. I hope you'll read that one!

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

#73

Post by Modified3019 »

ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #39
mattlondon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Incidentally, here's a new crowdsourced scheme for TF2 that even in prototype form has been addressing the issue far better than Valve's efforts:

I Pissed Off Every Cheater in TF2 (Data Breach Gone Wrong) | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVgk5t64cRs

Creating a Third-party Client to Auto-kick Cheaters and Bots from TF2 (Part 1/3) | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsWjdkyoPo

Basically cheaters don't seem to want just a one off high like a classic troll out for havoc, they want a reputation of being better than they are for an extended ego trip. Their choice will soon be either restraining themselves to becoming very subtle, or keep having to make new accounts.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

yoavweiss_ wrote: post #43

Blog 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…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by kotaKat »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #61
yoavweiss_ wrote: post #43

Blog 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…

[flagged]

Google proposals and ideas like this along with the gaslighting by people like the OP are just another way to continue to assault users.

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

#76

Post by goku12 »

yoavweiss_ wrote: post #69
goku12 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it…

> I don't believe in attacking individuals for what is a systemic issue. I appreciate that! > 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 h…

So we are in agreement that WEI poses a serious threat to open web. Now let's get to the DRM part:

> At the same time, I perceive DRM as a way to control access and ability to copy copyrighted material.

That is merely the stated objective of DRM. However, it's well known and accepted that DRM schemes do the following as well:

1. Restrict where (device or application) the user can consume the content.

2. Restrict how long the user can consume the content.

Despite denials, I'm yet to see DRM schemes that don't do these as well. And everyone's concern regarding WEI is regarding point 1 and possibly point 2 as well. So, saying that WEI isn't DRM scheme is based on a narrow interpretation rather than a practical one.

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

#77

Post by fsniper »

yoavweiss_ wrote: post #60
fsniper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First thank you answering openly.

But I believe you and I have a pretty different understanding about "constructive criticism". I don't believe "non-supportive and constructive" is enough in this case. I don't even believe that to be possible.

You can't "construct" while you want to "destruct".

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

#78

Post by onli »

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…

Which might be wrong of course. The legal argument that this smells of monopoly abuse and might be a factor in the coming forced split of alphabet could actually stop such proposals most effectively.

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

#79

Post by scrollaway »

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…

Yeah, no, I’ve been in this game before as well.

The author’s perspective is that their team is right, the use case is valid and MUST be addressed, and if there is an issue in the proposal, it’s a fixable technical issue but the essence of the thing has to happen.

The author will never accept that the premise is wrong, because that would not be constructive feedback.

The premise is wrong. Thus, this blog post is useless, and this defence of “the process” is an utter waste of time for you and me alike.

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

#80

Post by pptr »

lozenge wrote: post #68
pptr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots." That's as clear as day, they won't let you view the page with ad blocking.

That's debatable. I read it like this only affects the charging model. Advertisers only get charged for impressions from humans, not bots. This is enough to prevent fraud.
Post reply on HN