10 ms·
I feel like I have to repeat this, since so much is at stake here, where it is about the preservation of the web as we know it today, at the peril of having it
by c0l0 3y ago
I feel like I have to repeat this, since so much is at stake here, where it is about the preservation of the web as we know it today, at the peril of having it turned into yet another walled garden:
The only way around the dystopia this will lead to is to constantly and relentlessly shame and even harass all those involved in helping create it. The scolding in the issue tracker of that wretched "project" shall flow like a river, until the spirit of those pursuing it breaks, and the effort is disbanded.
And once the corporate hydra has regrown its head, repeat. Hopefully, enough practise makes those fighting the dystopia effective enough to one day topple over sponsoring and enabling organisations as a whole, instead of only their little initiatives leading down that path.
Not a pretty thing, but necessary.
- em1sar 3y ago[dead]
- doliveira 3y agoYeah, financial and social pressure is basically the only weapons we have against corporations when regulations don't exist. And honestly, financial pressure doesn't work at this scale or in this case.
- mwint 3y agoRegulation is just social pressure enforced by guns.
- jjoonathan 3y agoYes, but this will be an uphill battle. Every campaign must be financed, so every politician must effectively be vetted by monied interests. The same monied interests that we see here on a strategic offensive against the rest of us. Regulators will tend to be sympathetic to them, not us, until things get really bad. Is EFF still the place to send money?
- Brian_K_White 3y agoI think so. I don't know of any better.
- nequo 3y agoAre they actively pursuing WEI? Is there anyone who is?
- hartator 3y ago> when regulations don't exist It’s very likely governments will make this mandatory if they have the chance to regulate over this.
- kevmo 3y ago[flagged]
- tmpz22 3y agoWhich executive orders, federal appointments, and other executive branch actions, would you attribute to Eric Schmidt?
- docmars 3y agoFrom this article: "At the same time, Schmidt has been appointed to numerous White House advisory positions, giving him privileged insight into the administration’s policies in technology, science and military defense, as well as unusual access to top policymakers." https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/eric-schmidt-obamas-chief-corporate-ally https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/eric-schmid... A quick Google of "eric schmidt obama" brings up a lot of articles discussing their close political relationship.
- signatoremo 3y agoAnd that makes him “shadow president” how? Was he the one with the most access as opposed to, says, David Axelrod?
- docmars 3y agoI don't want to put words into the OP's mouth with regards to his assertion about Schmidt, but given the loose wording: "basically shadow president", it's fair to say it isn't meant literally, and it usually comes with a negative connotation and to imply that Schmidt was so deeply involved, from a standpoint of strong biases in favor of Google and the obvious potential for corruption in participating as an advisor to someone (Obama) who doesn't have the same grasp on technology — and the extent and length of Schmidt's involvement throughout Obama's terms. It could be said that Schmidt disproportionately influenced important decisions in the tech realm, to a degree nearly equal to executive authority, because it presumably (and greatly) outweighs the opinions of the other heads of Big Tech, so long as Obama was naive enough to agree with him on key issues he didn't fully understand. This is especially damning in light of the NSA / Prism scandal during Obama's term, and Big Tech's involvement and compliance with that. Of course, anyone could assert this about an advisor to a President depending on the President's level of knowledge and outright willingness to apply their advice, even if in spite of fairness (competition), rights, laws, or precedents.
- varelse 3y ago[dead]
- xeonmc 3y agoSpeaking of regulations, I think an angle that can help spread awareness to the general public is casting this as essentially being the equivalent of SOPA/PIPA but being pushed by Big Tech rather than Big Gov.
- amalcon 3y agoIf you live in a representative democracy, and Google has a presence there, contact the offices of those representatives. These things don't always seem like they matter, but sometimes they do. Big tech generally (and Google specifically) is a pretty popular target right now -- seemingly worldwide and across most ideological divisions.
- docmars 3y agoThis is true, but I think the main issue is whether people are quick enough to call for congressional hearings and decisive actions / lawmaking that would have any impact before it's too late. It's a race to the finish, and big tech companies always have the advantage. Of course, that doesn't mean regulation couldn't call for a reversal on what's been implemented. The other side to this issue is despite the scrutiny towards big tech, they can still lobby and make any regulatory actions seem effective, when in practice, they've already gotten their fingers into influencing policy in such a way that doesn't ultimately address the consumers' concerns.
- api 3y agoFinancial pressure won't work because you are not Google's customer. Google's customers are its advertisers.
- JohnFen 3y agoAnd you are the customers of those companies advertising. That's leverage, too.
- alexb_ 3y agoFinancial and social pressure are the only ways you convince anybody to do anything that isn't biological.
- foobarbecue 3y agoIs https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/issues?q=is%3Aissue https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... the best place to shame?
- elbybasolis 3y agoAttempting to open an issue yields this message: "An owner of this repository has limited the ability to comment to users that have contributed to this repository in the past."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jjoonathan 3y agoYoav Weiss is closing concern threads, calling them "spam." Ben Wiser ( https://benwiser.com https://benwiser.com ) turned off comments altogether.
- rapnie 3y agoMay their names reach eternal infamy on Wikipedia. The Open Web. Creators: TBL et al, Destroyed-By: Google et al.
- jjoonathan 3y ago> The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. - Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
- ParetoOptimal 3y agoHas anyone compiled a list of those pushing forward and/or working on WEI?
- mwill 3y agohttps://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#authors https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
- mort96 3y agoProbably also consider all Google employees complicit. All of them -- especially those who could easily just choose to work someone else, like their developers -- are either in favor of, or okay with, Google's mission to destroy the web.
- larata_media 3y agoI agree with your overall ideal of free access to information but I disagree that harassment is a necessary or even effective option to push against this. I think the harassment puts us in a category of ineffective, bitter malcontents and that’s not what we are. We are capable of going to elsewhere to free and open access to information, and we would be better off spending our energy on positively influencing others to follow us in that direction. They can’t take away tcp, http, ftp, irc and all the other protocols that these megaliths have built their empires on, and we can still use those tools even if it’s a demoralizing regression to move back to the basics. Giants like google, Amazon and others depend on our unwillingness to rebuild. Let’s use our efforts and our ingenuity to show them that they’ve underestimated us. We have the tools, we have the knowledge. Let’s be builders instead of petty complainers.
- LikelyABurner 3y agoWe’ve been doing that for years, larata_media. Decades, even. And what do we have to show for it? Our tools power their botnets and they flaunt the CoCs in our faces when we try to do something about it as “not constructive”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MetaMalone 3y agoWe must believe in ourselves. We are too quick to be cynical about the future of the web - too quick to forget our ingenuity in the face of adversity.
- pseg134 3y agoWell we can build something too but first we need to get rid of these people.
- dang 3y agoPlease don't do this here. More explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881034 In addition: could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait generally? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- zeteo 3y agoIt won't do anything. You don't think they've anticipated random angry outbursts going into this? Plus, the people you're harassing are simply implementing a policy that they don't have the power to change. The only pressure that Google has been shown to consistently respond to is political. Get a couple of senators (... of the right party) to send them a mild rebuke and they will indeed retreat a little (... and try something else later). But that's a lot harder than posting angry comments until the next piece of outrageous news comes along, isn't it?
- cliffy 3y agoI was just following orders!
- userbinator 3y agoDirectly sending a message to the implementers doesn't preclude involving politicians in this too, and I absolutely agree that the latter should be involved.
- JohnFen 3y ago> the people you're harassing are simply implementing a policy that they don't have the power to change. I'm not on board with harassing people (sad that I have to include this disclaimer). That said, the people are not simply implementing this. They're actively and publicly justifying and defending it.
- throwaway71271 3y agowhat exactly do you want to preserve from the web as we know it today? let it burn focus on building something new, new protocols, new networks, new browsers
- swayvil 3y agoSomething that isn't dependent upon the whims of princes.
- nfw2 3y agoTiktok is literally controlled by the CCP. If consumers don't care about that, they aren't going to care about DRM.
- anonym29 3y agoTech-literate folks really should make a concerted effort to move to our own darknet, something like freenet or I2P, to recreate the internet before the advent of mass adoption of smartphones by the public. Forums, IRC, vent/TS, webrings, XHTML 1.0. No WebGL. No Canvas. No WebAssembly. No damn WEI. Normies can f&$% off and enjoy the data-mined, DRM'd, ad-infested, CCP-propagandized, upload-your-photo-ID-to-post-here, privacy-free dump their illiteracy, careless disregard for harm, and data exhibitionism fetish has allowed the clearnet to turn into.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoWhile I like this idea, starting from the foot of "CCP-propagandized" based on the tiktok service hosted by Oracle in the US is an amazing way to start off on a Nazi infested foot. Anti-communism and fascism are historically in lock-step. No one is going to use the services if you basically create web4 stormfront.
- ddq 3y agoChina is nationalist authoritarian state capitalist, their external propaganda isn’t to spread Marxist ideology, it’s simply anything that helps China and hurts everyone else, same as any nationalism. “What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale.” Network, 1976 Further, free speech must be defended despite the modern liberal tendency to cut off the majority’s noses to spite nazi faces. If you’re gonna fight nazis, fight nazis, don’t throw out fundamental human rights. They know they can taint principles, signs, and symbols with their stench. Don’t give up essential freedoms out of guilt by association. These charlatans have no political theory, no examined ideology. It’s a power struggle and we’ve already ceded too much power.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoAll they'll have to do is make a pronouncement of support for some trendy social issue and everything will be forgiven and forgotten. Virtue signaling has turned into the most effective corporate tool for manipulating society into allowing corporations to do almost anything they want. And the public's addiction is so strong that even when this is pointed out and agreed that it is happening, the addiction still must be fed, so corporate sociopathic parasitism on society continues with the joyous approval of society in general.
- orangecat 3y agoYeah. I won't be surprised if the marketing for this misfeature pivots to "it will prevent harassment of marginalized groups".
- userbinator 3y agoIndeed. Negotiations have already turned out to be completely ineffective. The next step is war. Cory Doctorow came up with the phrase "The War on General-Purpose Computing", which describes the situation perfectly.
- teddyh 3y agoEven before that, there was “The Digital Imprimatur”: <https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/>
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoHe came up with it more than 9 years ago, during which time no such war has been generally apparent, and if anything, the conditions for general purpose computing have improved.
- insanitybit 3y agoThat sounds entirely unhelpful. They can just close the issue tracker + people will obviously just move on. This sounds like the Reddit 'blackout' that did nothing and is already forgotten. What we really need is for the collective browser vendors to refuse to implement this and, if Chrome pushes forward, to bring Google to court over it. Nothing short of legal intervention is going to help here.
- account42 3y agoOr we could show Chrome users what the future will look like for alternative browsers - by blocking Chrome now.
- insanitybit 3y agoOK? That has nothing to do with what the parent said, which is that the issue tracker should be flooded.
- zoul 3y agoSimilar feature is already in production Safari, alas: https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-attestation/ https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att...
- insanitybit 3y agoThat's not really surprising. Limited attestation of device state has been a thing for a long time and it's why Chrome is used at so many companies.
- shadowgovt 3y agoWhat sort of regulation do we imagine a government putting into place to stop this? If anything, governments tend to lean in favor of identification and verification systems because they make corporate commerce run more smoothly.
- 3y ago
- lopis 3y ago> constantly and relentlessly shame and even harass all those involved in helping create it If this ever helped, we wouldn't have absolutely unethical products created. Turns out people's morals have a price tag, that Google and others are willing to pay their employees.
- rightbyte 3y agoWell at least you can increase the price tag for Google, Facebook etc by taunting their employees as bad people. It is quite incredible actually, because it was not many years ago that working at Google had this coolness factor to it. Hopefully, it is a broader change of view, other than mine?
- boondoggle16 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoYou can't do this here. We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Mindwipe 3y agoThe battle is already lost legislatively. Multiple US states, France, Germany and the UK are going to make the web unnavigable unless you type your credit card number or scan your face for age verification in two out of every three sites. We are going to need to at least try to create ways to secure those credentials in as zero trust model as possible. (Note that the legislation is a disaster, but it is done. Nobody paid enough attention. It has passed or will pass in weeks.)
- prox 3y agoTime to build a fresh web. Get me my hypercards!
- Mindwipe 3y ago> Time to build a fresh web. Get me my hypercards! A fresh web doesn't exempt you from the legal requirements unfortunately. This year has seen the biggest state attacks by legislators on any electronic distribution of speech across most Western states for fifty years, and by and large the technology community has completely failed to even engage with that never mind stop it. We are all going to have to live with the consequences for decades.
- magic_hamster 3y agoI don't like Google's grasp on so many vital parts of the web but somehow, it seems like google is actually in trouble. AI is going to completely change search if it hasn't already, and google is not even close to compete in this space. Video has some massive competition from the likes of TikTok. Anyway, YouTube isn't the only option on the market. Gmail is still popular but since google has been pressuring users to pay, it's been easier than ever to find a reason to try another service. Chromium can always be forked and have some parts removed or added, and as we all know quite a few browsers do this, some are quite popular. Is google also losing IOS ads like Meta? If they do, that's another reason for alarm for them. I'm not sure google is in the best position for the future and WEI is not going to be their golden ticket either. And, if your prediction that web will change actually comes to pass, well then it'll be just another cycle for this space that has changed countless times since the age of dialup. The web is going to change, again and again, but as long as people are still free to set up a server and let the world access it, we can still do what we like with it.
- knewter 3y agoExcept increasingly the world will access it via drm aware browsers because their banks require it, and the open web audience will subsequently dwindle. The Halloween memos called this "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Google didn't just ignore the moves that provided M$ dominance.
- teddyh 3y agoTo paraphrase John Maynard Keynes: Google can stay irrational a lot longer than you or I can retain our freedoms. And when the precedents have been set, a new normal has been established, and when/if Google does finally fail, the next actor will step in and keep those freedoms from us all.
- pornel 3y agoCorporations will dismiss all of that as asshole Luddites, and do it anyway. You're not Google's customer. The advertisers are. The only way to stop Google from treating the Web as their own OS is to take that power away from them, by switching to other browser engines.
- pornel 3y agoAnd we have this crappy paradox that Mozilla is held to an impossibly high standard. People want to burn them to the ground for daring to use Google Analytics, or the Pocket acquisition, and keep using a 100% Google browser, with preferential integration with all of Google's services/protocols/APIs.
- lxgr 3y agoI think that's a false dichotomy. It's possible to criticize Mozilla (ideally in good faith) for both the way in which they develop Firefox and their focus/mission in general, while at the same time using Firefox, since to me it looks like the best alternative we've got. Not every Mozilla critic is a Chrome user; I'd even expect that the most vocal critics are Firefox fans and users.
- teddyh 3y agoIn theory, yes, but that’s what every thread about switching to Firefox gets: Lots of flames about Mozilla. But when the only sensible alternative is staying with Google, why would these people make these arguments as replies to suggestions to switch to Firefox? It is only reasonable to conclude that it’s not Firefox fans making these arguments, in those threads.
- anon7331 3y agoAh yes. The "Uncle Ted" approach, but a bit more mild. At what point do we go full Ted?
- verisimi 3y agoImo, the idea that this is about selling advertising and maintaining market share is being used as a false justification. This is not about being able to drive users to ads. The bigger picture is that Google et al are actually part of the control structure. The governance system wants deanonymised Internet. Corporate interests are how this is being promoted - government legislation would be a harder pill for the masses to accept. But all the recent mega changes tell us (Elon buying twitter, etc) tell us that this is on the way. Apparent anonymous internet will be sandboxed. Knowing everything about everyone all the time, and having that data being crunched by ai's is an amazing, audacious goal, that seems close to being achieved.
- hot_gril 3y agoJust saw https://github.com/chromium/chromium/pull/187/files https://github.com/chromium/chromium/pull/187/files It's even funnier with the auto-reply "Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA)."
- smashah 3y agoOh but that would be against the respective projects' code of conduct. /s
- dang 3y ago> constantly and relentlessly shame and even harass all those involved in helping create it Not on HN, please. I realize that you're trying to protect something you care about (and that maybe we all care about) but this leads to ugly mob behavior that we don't want and won't allow here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html