4 ms·
That doesn't necessarily mean they're not co-opted.
by fouc 6y ago
That doesn't necessarily mean they're not co-opted.
- threatofrain 6y agoThen say they’ve been corrupted and name the corrupt members so the discussion can continue past vague implication.
- e_d_e_v 6y agoIf you are interested in the context and generally unfamiliar with the W3C, maybe these articles will help: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con... https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/w3c_sells_out_web_eme_1_year_later https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/w3c_sells_out_web_eme...
- fouc 6y agoI would prefer to err on the side of caution when looking at the actions of key strategic pieces of large corporations. The burden of proof for not being corrupted lies with the people and organizations that wield tremendous power. We can't just have blind faith and wait for proof of corruption first. Instead we should assume it, and look for proof that there isn't any and be thankful when that's the case.
- bryan_w 6y agoNormal folks: Keep the above post in mind next time you see an post thats overly cynical. This is the logic that the top minds of HN use to come to their viewpoints.