4 ms·

This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. Yet we're debating this on an article whose every

by madrox 6y ago

This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. Yet we're debating this on an article whose every Sandbox criticism comes from other industry professionals who are just as worthy of being considered a malicious adversary. I make no statement that Project Sandbox should not be scrutinized -- merely that it's better than third party cookies -- and I don't believe increased antitrust scrutiny of Google will lead to better user privacy.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dleslie 6y ago
If the API cannot stand on its own merits without trusting Google then it is subject to concerns about Google's trustworthiness. 3rd party cookies should be replaced with _nothing_, not this "privacy" API.
patcon 6y ago
> This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. I respectfully disagree and defend the position you're replying to. I take issue with your provocation because I fear that asserting too much focus on a still-frame snapshot without looking at the full motion, that seems misguided. Politics constitute the motion around any spec snapshot. Focussing only on the technical merit of the proposal without also prioritizing the living, moving context around it, that's advocating a sort of blindness imho
- kissickas 6y ago
  You're ignoring the living, moving context that is the adtech industry. It's one with a much higher ratio of middlemen:customers than needed, representatives of whom appear in this article.
  - patcon 6y ago
    I think I agree with you. I wholly support clamping down on adtech btw. I just don't support the "this article doesn't talk about the tech merit" angle of critique, as if that's so obviously a starting (or priority) point of departure.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    And, worth noting, the set of adtech industry persons includes all employees and contractors of Google. Google simple wouldn't exist if it weren't for adtech, and all cheques written by Google are dependent on adtech. It's the largest, most invasive and pervasive privacy intrusion in history, and its beneficiaries includes many HN regulars.
- toomim 6y ago
  The solution isn't to (a) ignore the technical proposal and ignore the context, or (b) to ignore the context, and only focus on the technical proposal. The problem is that nobody is bringing these two together. Don't just focus on context without reading the actual proposal. Your comment says nothing about the technical proposal.

by madrox 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dleslie 6y ago

If the API cannot stand on its own merits without trusting Google then it is subject to concerns about Google's trustworthiness. 3rd party cookies should be replaced with _nothing_, not this "privacy" API.

patcon 6y ago

> This is basically an ad hominem argument. There is no room to discuss Sandbox on its merits with this stance. I respectfully disagree and defend the position you're replying to. I take issue with your provocation because I fear that asserting too much focus on a still-frame snapshot without looking at the full motion, that seems misguided. Politics constitute the motion around any spec snapshot. Focussing only on the technical merit of the proposal without also prioritizing the living, moving context around it, that's advocating a sort of blindness imho

kissickas 6y ago
You're ignoring the living, moving context that is the adtech industry. It's one with a much higher ratio of middlemen:customers than needed, representatives of whom appear in this article.
- patcon 6y ago
  I think I agree with you. I wholly support clamping down on adtech btw. I just don't support the "this article doesn't talk about the tech merit" angle of critique, as if that's so obviously a starting (or priority) point of departure.
- dleslie 6y ago
  And, worth noting, the set of adtech industry persons includes all employees and contractors of Google. Google simple wouldn't exist if it weren't for adtech, and all cheques written by Google are dependent on adtech. It's the largest, most invasive and pervasive privacy intrusion in history, and its beneficiaries includes many HN regulars.
toomim 6y ago
The solution isn't to (a) ignore the technical proposal and ignore the context, or (b) to ignore the context, and only focus on the technical proposal. The problem is that nobody is bringing these two together. Don't just focus on context without reading the actual proposal. Your comment says nothing about the technical proposal.