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

91–100 of 114 posts

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

#91

Post by tgma »

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…

Ironic everyone is, and has been, discussing this as "adults" except the author (with passive-aggressive tone and unprofessional P.S.).

Perhaps look in the mirror and get off the high horse? If Google bestows someone with some middle-managerial role, they don't get to assume everyone in the outside world is also one of their reports and have to suck up to them otherwise their Perf rating would suffer.

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

#92

Post by jauntywundrkind »

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…

It's establishing whether I have the right to view or use this site, as determined by whether some far off entity such as a Google approves of my computer or not.

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

#93

Post by hooverd »

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…

What if my problem is with the existence of the standard itself instead of implementation details?

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

#94

Post by charcircuit »

lozenge wrote: post #40
charcircuit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

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

#95

Post by charcircuit »

hooverd wrote: post #93
charcircuit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

What if my problem is with the existence of the standard itself instead of implementation details?

Then I would suggest that you calm down and be open to creating a safe environment for people to share their ideas. People should be free to propose whatever they want for the web. You shouldn't take issue with bad proposals merely existing.

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

#96

Post by mattlondon »

charcircuit wrote: post #30
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…

Even if the client is legit someone can just use a web extention or the devtool protocol to navigate to pages and extract text.

I think the point is that the server won't send the content if attestation fails

So the data isn't there at all - it's not just hidden away behind some JavaScript

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

#97

Post by JohnFen »

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…

If the purpose the proposal is trying to accomplish is itself highly objectionable, the only reasonable constructive feedback is "don't do it".

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

#98

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization.

But the article assumes that the goals are acceptable, so the only valid feedback is about the best way to accomplish those goals. There is no room there for people who think the goals themselves are unacceptable.

I think that what they're wanting to do is terrible. Why in the world would I want to contribute to standardizing the method of accomplishing them?

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

#99

Post by JohnFen »

charcircuit wrote: post #95
hooverd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if my problem is with the existence of the standard itself instead of implementation details?

Then I would suggest that you calm down and be open to creating a safe environment for people to share their ideas. People should be free to propose whatever they want for the web. You shouldn't take issue with bad proposals merely existing.

> You shouldn't take issue with bad proposals merely existing.

I disagree. If you don't take issue with bad proposals, it increases the chances that those bad proposals will be implemented.

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

#100

Post by hooverd »

charcircuit wrote: post #95
hooverd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if my problem is with the existence of the standard itself instead of implementation details?

Then I would suggest that you calm down and be open to creating a safe environment for people to share their ideas. People should be free to propose whatever they want for the web. You shouldn't take issue with bad proposals merely existing.

I don't think a safe environment should preclude saying "what the hell man". People should be free to react however they want to proposals for the web that would affect them. Anyone can write a proposal, but a proposal written by Googlers for Google has oomph than a proposal written by some guy.
Post reply on HN