3 ms·
The point of that was to note that the W3C doesn't care about the user. John Sullivan had a great tweet about this: https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/90993
by kick 7y ago
The point of that was to note that the W3C doesn't care about the user.
John Sullivan had a great tweet about this:
https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839 https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839
Fundamentally, the W3C does not work in the interest of the user, and shouldn't be trusted.
Get some of the Scuttlebutt guys or the Diaspora guys to contribute! Don't get the W3C, no one who's part of the W3C should have a say in anything.
Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.
- lucideer 7y ago> Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken. Agree with most of your comment, but I can't see where this is coming from. I would be shocked if any "standard" coming from Twitter would be anything but broken. Again, you're saying W3C doesn't work in the interests of the user, but ignoring that Twitter works actively against the interest of the user. W3C isn't ideal, but the alternative being discussed is devoid of any merit whatsoever.
- kick 7y agoI agree with the spirit of your comment, but: The alternative being discussed is Twitter appointing a different neutral party: if they're bending to the W3C, they're already appointing a "neutral party" to do the work for them, the only difference is changing who they trust from another giant organization that's very clearly apathetic about user interests to one that does: the SSBC would be perfect, for example.