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

11–20 of 114 posts

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

#11

Post by serial_dev »

Ygg2 wrote: post #9
serial_dev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, organizations love the mealy mouthed, weak feedback on their Github issue tracker because that's easy to ignore. Just say the issue is spammy, or hostile, then close it without addressing any of the issues. What's harder to ignore (though still not impossible) is top articles on Reddit, HN, and even mainstream tech news sites, and a constant coverage on YouTube, podcasts, etc.

Didn't Rust foundation went back and revised the stuff? As expected of a draft. Community: We want more openess. Foundation: Here is a draft... Community: But perfect and without errors.

Oh just edited my comment, wanted to remove the Rust bit as it could (and it did :)) divert attention.

But to respond to your comment: I am not sure if they would have retreated if there wasn't a constant stream of negative coverage on platforms that they do not control (Twitter, YouTube, Twitch, podcasts, blogs).

The issue with the draft was that it was extremely out of touch and some were afraid that it wasn't just a small mistake, rather than a direction that the foundation wanted to take, no matter the backlash.

If my girlfriend came to me with a draft that she should be able to date the cute barista guy in our local coffee shop and staying in the relationship with me, the fact that it's just a draft would not make me any more confident in the future of our relationship.

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

#12

Post by sgammon »

superkuh wrote: post #7
gymbeaux wrote: post #2

It’s passive-aggressive as hell and I can tell this guy and the idea as a whole are DOA… like even if this scheme didn’t give off strong Amp vibes, Google is the last company we want spearheading something like this. Stop trying to stay relevant, Google.

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.

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

#13

Post by Vecr »

superkuh wrote: post #7
gymbeaux wrote: post #2

It’s passive-aggressive as hell and I can tell this guy and the idea as a whole are DOA… like even if this scheme didn’t give off strong Amp vibes, Google is the last company we want spearheading something like this. Stop trying to stay relevant, Google.

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…

Has one of the standard open ACME providers ever revoked a cert over content? Hellenic Academic and Research Institutions CA (HARICA) threatened to, but the renewal went through and everything is working fine on my end.

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

#15

Post by rtpg »

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 think...), but what's the new technical thing being added here?

[0]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

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

#17

Post by supriyo-biswas »

This is a terrible take.

It is completely understandable from the perspective of Google contributors, as it is the least effort path for them to continue making profits, but shying away from criticism under the guise of “constructive discussion” is a really old tactic, and is well known by other names (such as “sealioning” when the strategy involves irritating the other party with excessive questions).

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

#18

Post by charcircuit »

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 the risks that adopting the proposal has.

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

#19

Post by fantyoon »

The central issue seems to be that Yoav frames this as a technical discussion. That people are unhappy with how Google tries to achieve the goal.

> Focusing on use cases would enable you to distill the essence of the proposal, and potentially propose alternatives that still address them without the bits you find harmful or risky.

But I think its obvious from discourse around the proposal that the goal itself is the problem. People aren't "constructively involved", not because they don't know how, they aren't because they don't want to construct anything. They think your goal is bad. They want you to stop.

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

#20

Post by realusername »

That whole article sounds like a parody, you can't seriously say that Google is interested in debates and technical merits on web proposals...

The Amp disaster being the best example of that. They do what they want according to their corporate goals and those proposals are just poorly made PR after the fact at best.

Post reply on HN