4 ms·
The advice is relevant then. You can argue about the stated agenda and use cases instead of assuming a hidden one. Whether there is a hidden agenda or not, the
by lozenge 3y ago
The advice is relevant then. You can argue about the stated agenda and use cases instead of assuming a hidden one.
Whether there is a hidden agenda or not, the authors of the spec can just reply, "that isn't the agenda" and ignore everything in your comment that followed from it.
- creatonez 3y agoAs far as I can tell, the criticism against the proposal was mostly surrounding the clearly stated goals of the proposal, such as protecting intellectual property. Didn't see much wild speculation, even though the internet is usually filled to the brim with it. So this advice as general advice makes sense, but is odd as a response to this situation.
- pptr 3y agoThe listed use-cases are not what I typically see complaints about. What I do see a lot: * This will be used to detect and block ad blockers. * Open source users can't do attestation and will get locked out of parts of the web. These are not goals of this proposal from what I can tell. And there are indeed discussions how to avoid those negative externalities.
- lozenge 3y ago"Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots." That's as clear as day, they won't let you view the page with ad blocking.