4 ms·

The W3C is run by the same peers who frequent this and other tech forums. You can help by contributing to the organization, or you could hope for some internet

The W3C is run by the same peers who frequent this and other tech forums. You can help by contributing to the organization, or you could hope for some internet points with snarky remarks. Which do you want to be remembered for?

ben_jones 9y ago
While he could've worded it better he did provide valid criticism. I'm sure he is not the only person here who has profiteering concerns for the various bodies who govern the internet.
swiley 9y ago
Alright "run" wasn't the right word, "heavily influenced by" is probably better. They just seem to continuously standardize things that are very user hostile and only serve content distributors.
- RandomInteger4 9y ago
  If people want to make money of the content they produce and other people are happy to pay them, then what's the problem?
- detaro 9y ago
  > continuously standardize things that are very user hostile and only serve content distributors. Example Nr 1 you are going to quote is the DRM stuff (understandably, it's the most controversial for good reasons, both inside and outside W3C). What other very user hostile examples are there?
  - swiley 9y ago
    Web workers are pretty bad if you're looking for another one.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
jancsika 9y ago
For certain decisions that seems like a false choice. For example, no amount of contribution would have stopped Netflix et al from pushing through EME as a web standard.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  As bad as DRM is, EME is a good step towards killing Flash. And because of that, Netflix needs a replacement, and the studios aren’t just going to remove DRM requirements because Netflix says they won’t support DRM. I’m almost certain that if Netflix tried to remove DRM, the studios would balk and pull their content.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Or Netflix could take the route they took on iOS and just make native apps for everything. Or, perhaps more likely, browser vendors would continue to not kill Flash until 2020 (at the earliest) when Adobe ends support, and then browsers would drop support for the insecure plugin and then Netflix would go the native apps route.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    That goes against what throwaway284534 was implying. If everyone is a "peer" and an enormous number of those peers make a succinct, persuasive argument that EME is incompatible with W3C's mission statement of "Web for All" and "Web for Rich Interaction"[1], one would think that would make a difference in the direction the W3C takes. Instead I'm eating popcorn watching players with deep pockets choose tactics in their battle to control an industry. And that battle is what shapes this web API. So the claim of, "your peers are listening and they value your feedback," is about as convincing as a hold message from Comcast. [1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission
- KyeRussell 9y ago
  It's called pragmatism.
orf 9y ago
Why not both?

ben_jones 9y ago

While he could've worded it better he did provide valid criticism. I'm sure he is not the only person here who has profiteering concerns for the various bodies who govern the internet.

swiley 9y ago

Alright "run" wasn't the right word, "heavily influenced by" is probably better. They just seem to continuously standardize things that are very user hostile and only serve content distributors.

RandomInteger4 9y ago
If people want to make money of the content they produce and other people are happy to pay them, then what's the problem?
detaro 9y ago
> continuously standardize things that are very user hostile and only serve content distributors. Example Nr 1 you are going to quote is the DRM stuff (understandably, it's the most controversial for good reasons, both inside and outside W3C). What other very user hostile examples are there?
- swiley 9y ago
  Web workers are pretty bad if you're looking for another one.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

jancsika 9y ago

For certain decisions that seems like a false choice. For example, no amount of contribution would have stopped Netflix et al from pushing through EME as a web standard.

colejohnson66 9y ago
As bad as DRM is, EME is a good step towards killing Flash. And because of that, Netflix needs a replacement, and the studios aren’t just going to remove DRM requirements because Netflix says they won’t support DRM. I’m almost certain that if Netflix tried to remove DRM, the studios would balk and pull their content.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Or Netflix could take the route they took on iOS and just make native apps for everything. Or, perhaps more likely, browser vendors would continue to not kill Flash until 2020 (at the earliest) when Adobe ends support, and then browsers would drop support for the insecure plugin and then Netflix would go the native apps route.
- jancsika 9y ago
  That goes against what throwaway284534 was implying. If everyone is a "peer" and an enormous number of those peers make a succinct, persuasive argument that EME is incompatible with W3C's mission statement of "Web for All" and "Web for Rich Interaction"[1], one would think that would make a difference in the direction the W3C takes. Instead I'm eating popcorn watching players with deep pockets choose tactics in their battle to control an industry. And that battle is what shapes this web API. So the claim of, "your peers are listening and they value your feedback," is about as convincing as a hold message from Comcast. [1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission
KyeRussell 9y ago
It's called pragmatism.

orf 9y ago

Why not both?