3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYou'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 agoI 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 agoAnd, 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 agoThe 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.