A privacy war is raging inside the W3C • Hacker News Board

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#31

Post by swiley » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #6

tomc1985 wrote: post #5

I don't care how big this man's business is, Rosewell is a parasite bent on preserving the established order of datamining the shit out of everyone for his own personal profit. He is gumming up the works with pointless philosophical bloviating, using the anti-big-tech argument as a cudgel of convenience for bludgeoning a nascent privacy movement that has taken decades to get off the ground. I've sat in a large audien…

agree with the sentiment but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message.. centuries of privacy rights are drained and drowning right now IMO

I used to care about this, Apple and Google changed my mind.

Fuck 'em.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#32

Post by calvinmorrison » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #11

Want a Web run by human beings again? Want tracking methods impossible to implement in any meaningful fashion by design? Try Gemini. Gemini is here and can be used TODAY. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ The only thing standing between you and the next web is... a lot, but try it anyway, things have to start somewhere.

my favorite client is Lagrange. The experience is nice and the codebase is sane

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#33

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #30

mistrial9 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agree with the sentiment but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message.. centuries of privacy rights are drained and drowning right now IMO

> but the vulgarity dilutes the weight of the message Actually vulgarity was invented (and has historically been used) to improve the weight of such messages. It works too: "Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception." [1] Can…

[deleted]

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#34

Post by marketingtech » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

It's easy to mock the pettiness of all parties described here, and it's common for people on this forum to take absolutist stances with regards to privacy/advertising, but it's also important to recognize that these arguments will actually define the future of the internet for the average user.

There are trillion dollar companies on both sides of the argument, and their eventual compromise will establish the defaults for billions of users.

There are also two fundamental components of the Big Tech debate at odds with each other here - privacy and competition. Increasing privacy decreases competition by strengthening the Big Tech companies that engage with users at the platform/browser/OS/hardware level. See: Google's removal of third-party cookies from Chrome in the name of privacy was just blocked by EU competition regulators, because it would cripple competing advertising companies[1].

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-reg...

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#35

Post by DenseComet » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #11

Want a Web run by human beings again? Want tracking methods impossible to implement in any meaningful fashion by design? Try Gemini. Gemini is here and can be used TODAY. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ The only thing standing between you and the next web is... a lot, but try it anyway, things have to start somewhere.

Do you have a list of sites on Gemini that are interesting or useful? I don't use the web because it uses HTML or because it has JS or really any particular technical feature. I use it because it has sites like HN and Google, and I think the same thing applies to Gemini. I love the ideas behind Gemini, but I'm not sure why I'd use Gemini if there are not interesting sites.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#36

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

Funny how there is no (meaningful) user representation at W3C. Perhaps Wendy Seltzer is the closest to a user representative. A lawyer who is a Perl programmer, according to her Wikipedia profile.

The arguments against Big Tech the smaller ad tech folks are raising sound legit, but obviously they are not being made in good faith. Big Tech has no more respect for user privacy than companies like Rosewell's. They are all a threat to user privacy. Companies that make browsers should not also be taking in online ad services revenue. It is a clear conflict of interest.

51degrees provides the public with a CSV list of user-agents, e.g., for use in browser fingerprinting (or perhaps user defence against browser fingerprinting). What does Google provide. We know they are fingerpringing on a mass scale. There is zero transparency.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/51Degrees/Device-Detection...

Just for fun, I periodically compile w3c-libwww. It still compiles and it still works today. I use it through a TLS-enabled proxy. It reminds me of all the potential for experimetation the www once had. Today the web just looks like a Big Tech-led surveillance dystopia slowly coming together. Unless someone stops it. Lina Khan, godspeed.

The disputes described in the article with lawyers from W3C and IAPP looking on reminds me a little of the formation of ICANN back in the 1990's and the disputes over domain names versus trademarks.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#37

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

andrewzah wrote: post #14

tomc1985 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My vulgarity is an expression of frustration in their overall apathy to the consequences of their actions. Forcing people to smother their feelings in the name of 'genteel' discussion does a disservice to those who feel oppressed or misheard. Some things in this world are quite ugly and it is important to portray them as such. Perhaps you should evaluate why you let mere words affect you so much.

I agree with you on vulgarity but life isn't really fair about this. Just like how wearing a suit unfairly makes a presentation more potent than casual wear. It is what it is. Being vulgar (even if technically justified) weakens the message for many people, especially when the other party is very polite and professional in return. edit: I would prefer if people weren't like that, but that's just one of the many flaws…

[deleted]

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#38

Post by api » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

marketingtech wrote: post #34

It's easy to mock the pettiness of all parties described here, and it's common for people on this forum to take absolutist stances with regards to privacy/advertising, but it's also important to recognize that these arguments will actually define the future of the internet for the average user. There are trillion dollar companies on both sides of the argument, and their eventual compromise will establish the defaults…

> Increasing privacy decreases competitions, strengthening the Big Tech companies that engage with users at the platform/browser/OS/hardware level.

What about products that people actually pay for directly instead of products that are "free" but funded under the table through surveillance and manipulation? Why can't those compete just fine?

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#39

Post by cesarb » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

skymt wrote: post #24

cusenses wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prevents Gemini from being taken over and utilized just like the current web has been?

The Gemini protocol is intended to exclude features that could be used for tracking. It has no cookies, user-agent, referer, etc and the protocol is not extensible enough that such features could be easily added. Also, frankly, the spartan design of native Gemini pages (very limited formatting, no scripts or even inline images!) means that the circle of nerds who use Gemini will almost certainly remain too small to c…

> It has no cookies, user-agent, referer, etc and the protocol is not extensible enough that such features could be easily added.

For now.

The original HTTP (now retroactively called HTTP/0.9) also had none of these, and also wasn't extensible enough; it had no headers at all, just the verb (GET) and the path. Yet somehow, it was later extended to include all of these.

> very limited formatting, no scripts or even inline images!

The original HTML was also like that, even inline images came later.

Re: A privacy war is raging inside the W3C

#40

Post by ozfive » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #29

allturtles wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, politeness is racist now?

I don't think that politeness is inherently racist, but it has been used as a tool of racial suppression, and as a way of keeping itinerants in line https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2006/sept...

This was really important for me to read. Thanks for sharing!