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

81–90 of 114 posts

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

#81

Post by lozenge »

pptr wrote: post #80
lozenge wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Once the API is there it can be used for forbidding ad blockers.

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

#82

Post by nobody9999 »

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…

>* If you're objecting to the goals of the proposal [1], it'd serve you better to outline which goals are objectionable and why. Mozilla folks did a good job at articulating that in https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/852#is...

Well, you asked for it, so here goes. WEI (IIUC) requires (at least the proposal claims such a thing) "attestation" of my devices in order to ensure that advertisements (and the sites they are displayed on) are actually viewed by humans and not bots engaged in gaming the ad system and 3rd party content creation.

The proposal would require me to give (without choice or recompense) data, CPU cycles, network bandwidth and, most importantly some portion of my privacy to accomplish such "attestation."

Without allowing such intrusions on my private property (i.e., my devices), the proposal as it stands, could (and with wide adoption, would) block me from accessing sites of my choosing. And that's antithetical to the idea of the open internet.

I provide a bit more detail in this comment[0] in a different discussion[1] of this proposal, wherein I detail that these are issues between advertisers and Google that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

Why should I be required to donate CPU cycles, storage, bandwidth and give up some privacy so a multi-hundred billion dollar corporation can better serve its customers (again, neither of whom I have any sort of business relationship with) and improve its financial performance?

Perhaps you could enlighten me on what benefit WEI has for anyone other than Google or its customers (that'd be advertisers)?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36860125

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36857032

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

#83

Post by orbz »

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…

Dumb question: wouldn’t this actually reduce ad revenue as you would be eliminating ad fraud for which providing platforms collect money?

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

#84

Post by gaganyaan »

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…

Please stop obfuscating the issue. You're doing morally repugnant work, and no amount of tone policing will change that. Please take the advice already given to you in multitudes: Don't

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

#85

Post by gaganyaan »

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…

Please listen to the feedback you have universally gotten from the community. Stop.

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

#86

Post by wcerfgba »

orbz wrote: post #83
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…

Dumb question: wouldn’t this actually reduce ad revenue as you would be eliminating ad fraud for which providing platforms collect money?

It would reduce the number of fraudulent clicks and non-human views, but then if you can verify the eyeballs and cursor on the other side are human, presumably that would increase the cost per impression and per click, so it may increase revenue.

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

#87

Post by superkuh »

sgammon wrote: post #12
superkuh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has already achieved this goal with their QUIC based HTTP/3. No implementation or use of HTTP/3 lib in any browser can connect to a webserver unless it gets the continued approval of a third party incorporated CA for TLS certs. With a 90 day renewal period that's basically just attestation of content every 90 days. If your site becomes illegal in an area (say, abortion information) then your CA TLS host can be…

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.

You can. It's just that no browser that supports HTTP/3 will accept it as a legit endpoint with a valid root. So they won't connect to the HTTP/3 endpoint at all and you won't be able to access the HTTP/3 self-signed website.

And before anyone goes there, no, setting up your own root CA is not an option. Unless you get can Google/Apple/Mozilla/etc to include your root CA in their browser trust stores it doesn't help a random person visit your website at all.

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

#88

Post by Adverblessly »

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…

(Note that I'm not the parent)

The first goal of the proposal is to

> Allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device.

That is, to give web servers the ability to Digitally restrict (or Manage) a user's Rights to access content on a device and software stack of their choice.

Can you explain in what ways this is not DRM?

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

#90

Post by lucasyvas »

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…

Hey snowflake,

Your proposal sucks, get over it. You have received plenty of thoughtful feedback and you are not a victim.

Veiling contempt for your audience should be a bannable offence here.

Post reply on HN