4 ms·

One of my closest friends is working on this proposal. The personal safety fears are unfortunately real, which is absurd. However you feel about the internet,

One of my closest friends is working on this proposal. The personal safety fears are unfortunately real, which is absurd. However you feel about the internet, people shouldn't be physically threatened for having ideas about how to try to make it better. On an unrelated but otherwise relevant note: he's also one of the most thoughtful and intelligent people I know, who has spent the majority of his career becoming a domain expert in internet abuse. He's also a true hacker and tinkerer who fully embodies the same free-as-in-freedom ethos that a lot of the dissenters do. I haven't had a chance to talk to him about this proposal yet, but I'm really curious to hear his take. I'm sure it's thoughtful, nuanced, and well-intentioned. He'll be honest about what criticism is valid and what needs more work. He's the kind of person you want working on something this sensitive. Those of you piling on about how this is Google being boldly evil or the death of the internet or whatever, kindly shut the fuck up. These are well-intentioned people presenting ideas to make the web a better place for everyone. (Abuse is unfortunately a very real thing that has real consequences; see also, global politics in the last decade.) Your hyperbole is putting real people in danger, and that is not okay.

goku12 3y ago
I sincerely hope that your friends and all other people involved in WEI, and their families remain safe from harm and harassment. I'm completely opposed to any sort of violence in this matter. Having read WEI in the current form (several times), I'm convinced that it presents a serious threat to the open web. It's no hyperbole and it doesn't take a genius to understand it. (One of its creators concurred too). The above two are not mutually exclusive. And it's possible to oppose a bad idea without resorting to violence. Please stop using some people's bad behavior to attack the entire opposition. That's a bad faith argument.
klipklop 3y ago
> Those of you piling on about how this is Google being boldly evil or the death of the internet or whatever, kindly shut the fuck up. These are well-intentioned people… Note, nobody should harass anybody… People get pretty bent out of shape when a company with a history of unethical behavior that constantly walks back promises suggest something like this. If your friend was well intentioned there are a lot of things they can go work on that don’t include drafting proposals that will one day potentially end the open internet as we know it today. We don’t need something like WEI. Full stop.
saagarjha 3y ago
Putting aside the obvious about death threats: you seem to think that being thoughtful and well-intentioned is disjoint from making the world a worse place. There are plenty of very passionate, smart people working in CSAM detection who propose variations of banning E2E every year. We don’t do that because the harm it causes would be incredibly high, even though CSAM is horrible and we should continue to work to stop it from being a thing. Fraud is very similar. I’ve interacted with another of the proposal’s authors and they came off as smart and reasonable too. The problem, of course, is that if you focus in one area it is easy to become blind to what the other effects of your work can be, and weigh them appropriately. There are lots of things introduced with good intentions that end up going sour because they either don’t work or people with bad intentions abuse it. Or, even more often, people with neutral intentions but misaligned incentives end up making things that suck. Google has done this often in the past and they will continue to do that in the future because they’re a big company with various goals that do not always align with what’s good for society.
michaeljx 3y ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your friend is now facing the consequences of their professional choices. Their well-intentioned ideas are not simply presented and discussed, but instead forcefully shoved down our throat from a position of power. Such a behaviour nullifies any claim to working from a well intentioned position. If your friend wishes to serve their master, however they decide to rationalize their behavior, the fact remains that they are endangering society and as such should not be able to do this without personal consequences.
0xbadc0de5 3y ago
Good intentions does not excuse abhorrent behavior. Nor is "I was just following orders" a defense against unethical behavior. Many of the worst human rights abuses in history were committed by well intentioned people trying to make the world a better place.

goku12 3y ago

I sincerely hope that your friends and all other people involved in WEI, and their families remain safe from harm and harassment. I'm completely opposed to any sort of violence in this matter. Having read WEI in the current form (several times), I'm convinced that it presents a serious threat to the open web. It's no hyperbole and it doesn't take a genius to understand it. (One of its creators concurred too). The above two are not mutually exclusive. And it's possible to oppose a bad idea without resorting to violence. Please stop using some people's bad behavior to attack the entire opposition. That's a bad faith argument.

klipklop 3y ago

> Those of you piling on about how this is Google being boldly evil or the death of the internet or whatever, kindly shut the fuck up. These are well-intentioned people… Note, nobody should harass anybody… People get pretty bent out of shape when a company with a history of unethical behavior that constantly walks back promises suggest something like this. If your friend was well intentioned there are a lot of things they can go work on that don’t include drafting proposals that will one day potentially end the open internet as we know it today. We don’t need something like WEI. Full stop.

saagarjha 3y ago

Putting aside the obvious about death threats: you seem to think that being thoughtful and well-intentioned is disjoint from making the world a worse place. There are plenty of very passionate, smart people working in CSAM detection who propose variations of banning E2E every year. We don’t do that because the harm it causes would be incredibly high, even though CSAM is horrible and we should continue to work to stop it from being a thing. Fraud is very similar. I’ve interacted with another of the proposal’s authors and they came off as smart and reasonable too. The problem, of course, is that if you focus in one area it is easy to become blind to what the other effects of your work can be, and weigh them appropriately. There are lots of things introduced with good intentions that end up going sour because they either don’t work or people with bad intentions abuse it. Or, even more often, people with neutral intentions but misaligned incentives end up making things that suck. Google has done this often in the past and they will continue to do that in the future because they’re a big company with various goals that do not always align with what’s good for society.

michaeljx 3y ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your friend is now facing the consequences of their professional choices. Their well-intentioned ideas are not simply presented and discussed, but instead forcefully shoved down our throat from a position of power. Such a behaviour nullifies any claim to working from a well intentioned position. If your friend wishes to serve their master, however they decide to rationalize their behavior, the fact remains that they are endangering society and as such should not be able to do this without personal consequences.

0xbadc0de5 3y ago

Good intentions does not excuse abhorrent behavior. Nor is "I was just following orders" a defense against unethical behavior. Many of the worst human rights abuses in history were committed by well intentioned people trying to make the world a better place.