So, you don't like a web platform proposal
blog.yoav.ws
So, you don't like a web platform proposal
1–10 of 114 posts
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#2It’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.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#3While 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 possible.
(The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable; can't really tell if it is naïveté or deception.)
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#4While 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…
Couldnt agree more, the 'make technical arguments' nonsense when WEI, and many similar issues, arent problematic for technical reason is ridiculous.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#5>That's great!! Getting involved in web platform discussions is essential to ensure it's built for and by everyone.
Yes, because Google is known for listening to public and talking to non-organisations without posting conversation killers like "the decision has been made and we're going forward with it. Thanks for your valuable feedback."
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#6I'm sorry, but Occams razor tells me that Google proposed this to further strengthen their monopoly on the web browser market and make sure their ads and tracking cannot be avoided.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#7It’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 pressured, cert revoked, and your site made unvisitable for all but uber geeks compiling their own HTTP/3 libs with special flags and linking them to $browser manually. There's no way to host a HTTP HTTP/3 site that's visitable. And no one minds. So...
Google could have avoided all of this blowback over WEI by simply calling it "HTTPS+ Everywhere" and pretending it helped user privacy only.
I'll grant there are a few more TLS CA options than possible WEI attestation options (if they really are to come from the OS vendors like the spec suggests). But not that many more and any legal pressure applicable to one is applicable to all. Both Google WEI and Google QUIC HTTP/3 are terrible and both need opposition or at least mitigation.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#8>That's great!! Getting involved in web platform discussions is essential to ensure it's built for and by everyone. Yes, because Google is known for listening to public and talking to non-organisations without posting conversation killers like "the decision has been made and we're going forward with it. Thanks for your valuable feedback."
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.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#9>That's great!! Getting involved in web platform discussions is essential to ensure it's built for and by everyone. Yes, because Google is known for listening to public and talking to non-organisations without posting conversation killers like "the decision has been made and we're going forward with it. Thanks for your valuable feedback."
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.
Re: So, you don't like a web platform proposal
#10I agreed with you, Yoav, when you posted your rant about gRPC and Chrome (because of the trailers debacle). Here was a case where Google prevented innovation at Google for unclear and selfish reasons, to the detriment of the community. You weren't wrong about how that decision was made with too few voices in the room. That decision was made in a vacuum, and Google and the community suffered.
WEI is a case where you should apply this same thinking. If the response is resoundingly negative, to the point where the conversation degrades, your counterparty may be trying to signal a deeper level of panic than you acknowledge. The point of people posting legalese-style threats is to get Google to disengage. I think the opponents of this proposal have little interest in talking through it. They see it as a mortal threat to the Open Web, and I'm inclined to agree with them; under this framework, is it not our shared moral obligation to delay, obstruct, or otherwise oppose it by any means possible?
As a fan of your previous work, not a hater, I would respectfully implore you to think again.