5 ms·

While I fully understand the feeling of the author being a Googler doing their job, being a cog in the machine and launching something to advance their promo ca

by tgma 3y ago

While I fully understand the feeling of the author being a Googler doing their job, being a cog in the machine and launching something to advance their promo case, would be visibly upset that people who actually care about the outcome are actively fighting their project, I also think from the users' perspective, dealing with a powerful corporation, it is the right thing to do to bury this type of danger as soon as possible. (The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable; can't really tell if it is naïveté or deception.)

monkaiju 3y ago
Couldnt agree more, the 'make technical arguments' nonsense when WEI, and many similar issues, arent problematic for technical reason is ridiculous.
charcircuit 3y ago
>The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable It is essentially just asking for constructive feedback. When people just say not to do it, insult the author, or make assumptions about the proposal that aren't true the comments are not actionable. Even if an issue is political you can still make a constructive argument on the risks that adopting the proposal has.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard). You know, if your government body of choice came up with a terrible idea in a draft bill and enraged the population, it would not be appropriate for them to go on TV and say “the population should offer constructive criticism in the form of legal arguments”. So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard). Yes, and you can see how many people are being ignored. The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization. >So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry? For example, people may think coming up with legal arguments may be an effective way to engage in the proposal and try to shut it down. The article describes that legal arguments will not be productive.
    - lozenge 3y ago
      Can you provide an example of feedback that hasn't been ignored?
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/issues/12 https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
        scrollaway 3y ago
        1. This isn't external, it's internal 2. It's not feedback, it's a bug report on something being broken You don't get a gold star for being like "See, they're listening!" when they allow people internally involved in the project the privilege of having their bug reports heard. The proposal is de-facto bad. The goals it wants to achieve are bad. There is no "technical argument", just like there's no "technical argument" to being against a proposal that says you must share all your passwords with me. Stop the sealioning.
    - onli 3y ago
      Which might be wrong of course. The legal argument that this smells of monopoly abuse and might be a factor in the coming forced split of alphabet could actually stop such proposals most effectively.
    - 3y ago
- goku12 3y ago
  Here's how they respond to 'constructive arguments': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36855429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36855429 . Especially this part: https://danshumway.com/blog/chrome-autoplay/ https://danshumway.com/blog/chrome-autoplay/
  - FridgeSeal 3y ago
    From the first link: > according to Google there's no such thing as a harmful feature and Google's approach is never wrong; it just might need refining This is some grade-A toxic behaviour from google. It gives the same vibes as the infuriatingly phrased: “oh sweetly you just don’t understand”
- JohnFen 3y ago
  If the purpose the proposal is trying to accomplish is itself highly objectionable, the only reasonable constructive feedback is "don't do it".
Modified3019 3y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair "It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest; the only way to deal with him is to outvote him." -William Jennings Bryan "Hear, hear! It’s all a question of trusts and monopolies. Doctors have a monopoly of medicine just as parsons have of God. You can’t get a parson to admit the arguments of an agnostic, because his salary depends on his not letting the agnostic refute him; and you can’t get an ordinary doctor to look kindly on psychoanalysis or autosuggestion because their success would make him superfluous. All this is not a question of the Life Force at all; it is a question of bread and butter." -C. E. M. Joad

by tgma 3y ago

monkaiju 3y ago

Couldnt agree more, the 'make technical arguments' nonsense when WEI, and many similar issues, arent problematic for technical reason is ridiculous.

charcircuit 3y ago

>The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable It is essentially just asking for constructive feedback. When people just say not to do it, insult the author, or make assumptions about the proposal that aren't true the comments are not actionable. Even if an issue is political you can still make a constructive argument on the risks that adopting the proposal has.

scrollaway 3y ago
It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard). You know, if your government body of choice came up with a terrible idea in a draft bill and enraged the population, it would not be appropriate for them to go on TV and say “the population should offer constructive criticism in the form of legal arguments”. So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard). Yes, and you can see how many people are being ignored. The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization. >So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry? For example, people may think coming up with legal arguments may be an effective way to engage in the proposal and try to shut it down. The article describes that legal arguments will not be productive.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Can you provide an example of feedback that hasn't been ignored?
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/issues/12 https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
      - scrollaway 3y ago
        1. This isn't external, it's internal 2. It's not feedback, it's a bug report on something being broken You don't get a gold star for being like "See, they're listening!" when they allow people internally involved in the project the privilege of having their bug reports heard. The proposal is de-facto bad. The goals it wants to achieve are bad. There is no "technical argument", just like there's no "technical argument" to being against a proposal that says you must share all your passwords with me. Stop the sealioning.
  - onli 3y ago
    Which might be wrong of course. The legal argument that this smells of monopoly abuse and might be a factor in the coming forced split of alphabet could actually stop such proposals most effectively.
  - 3y ago
goku12 3y ago
Here's how they respond to 'constructive arguments': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36855429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36855429 . Especially this part: https://danshumway.com/blog/chrome-autoplay/ https://danshumway.com/blog/chrome-autoplay/
- FridgeSeal 3y ago
  From the first link: > according to Google there's no such thing as a harmful feature and Google's approach is never wrong; it just might need refining This is some grade-A toxic behaviour from google. It gives the same vibes as the infuriatingly phrased: “oh sweetly you just don’t understand”
JohnFen 3y ago
If the purpose the proposal is trying to accomplish is itself highly objectionable, the only reasonable constructive feedback is "don't do it".

Modified3019 3y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair "It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest; the only way to deal with him is to outvote him." -William Jennings Bryan "Hear, hear! It’s all a question of trusts and monopolies. Doctors have a monopoly of medicine just as parsons have of God. You can’t get a parson to admit the arguments of an agnostic, because his salary depends on his not letting the agnostic refute him; and you can’t get an ordinary doctor to look kindly on psychoanalysis or autosuggestion because their success would make him superfluous. All this is not a question of the Life Force at all; it is a question of bread and butter." -C. E. M. Joad