6 ms·

Personally, I find this line of argumentation nothing more than pure ad hominem. This is an open specification, open to review by everyone. If there were techno

Personally, I find this line of argumentation nothing more than pure ad hominem. This is an open specification, open to review by everyone. If there were technological changes made to somehow support better data collection, people would be able to see that. The IETF and the W3C has always had large companies involved in specs, often with their own agendas, I see no reason to attack Google in this way.

steveklabnik 13y ago
An ad hominem would mean that I am saying they're wrong. My argument is not Google is an advertising company, therefore SPDY is bad. My argument is Google is an advertising company, and the largest single entity on the Internet, and therefore, their actions deserve a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm not sure that we've been giving them enough skepticism. SPDY does have good points, and bad points. I just saw a lot of chatter from people who want to ignore the bad points simply because of where the spec came from.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  But why is an advertising company deserve more skepticism than a company that sells operating systems or database servers?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, an advertising company has incentives to collect and process as much data about individuals as possible. This is Google's core competency. Oh, and in Google's case specifically, they now control the largest web site, one of the largest web browsers, (with this) the protocol it talks to, and they're attempting to supersede JavaScript too... and one of the largest client-side frameworks. The list goes on and on. The largest mobile phone OS. Email provider. (?) Working on social network...
- tyre 13y ago
  Google also handles more traffic then almost any company on the planet, so their involvement in a discussion about transporting bits is, well, not really that shocking. The issue is that you're throwing around them being an advertising company as a negative without any discernible proof that it has negatively affected the outcome. What, specifically (and please spare us the 'rhetorical flourishes') has been proposed that is unfairly biased towards advertising? Which parts should we be skeptical about?
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Sure, but bigger and smaller scale operations have different needs. The internet isn't supposed to be about what's best for the big guys, it's supposed to be about what's best for humanity. I've mentioned specifics elsewhere in this thread, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012906
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      The "specifics" in the other threads are more ad hominem. You're saying "we should be wary of what Google does" without actually mentioning what's there in the spec to be wary about. You're saying "we shouldn't trust Google to pass specs unchecked", people are saying "but we aren't: we've read the spec, and it's good", and you're saying "yeah, but we shouldn't trust Google".
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        > without actually mentioning what's there in the spec to be wary about. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088 And, as I mention elsewhere, it's not just the spec, it's the general trend of Google dominating the web. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468
        StavrosK 13y ago
- smutticus 13y ago
  Unless you can point to a specific point in this IETF draft which furthers Google's interests while diminishing others' I'm going to ignore you.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    There is more to the world than a technical draft, you can't just abstract away the rest of everything else. For technical critiques, I commented earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088
    - chc 13y ago
      > There is more to the world than a technical draft, you can't just abstract away the rest of everything else. Then maybe you should actually bring these things up. You seem to be playing coy and throwing around innuendo. If you have real, substantive concerns about something, I think the conversation would be greatly improved by actually bringing those up rather than just casting aspersions about Google.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        I have brought them up, this isn't my only comment in this thread.
gnosis 13y ago
There are a large number of Google employees and stock holders on HN, and it would not be at all surprising if they leapt to Google's defense for non-technical reasons. It would be enlightening to see the defenders of Google disclosing whether they have any financial or other interest in Google. To complement that disclosure, any attackers of Google should likewise disclose whether they have any financial or other interests in Google's competitors.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  It would help if people just criticize on the spec based on the technical merits.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    I agree that technical critiques are good, but technology is social. You can't abstract away the rest of the real world. We need both kinds.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      A reasonable argument would say that we don't need the social and political stuff in standards discussions, which should be based instead on engineering.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        Absolutely. This is why I wouldn't make these comments on the IETF mailing list. I do think that HN is an appropriate venue, this is very much a social place. "Should we be doing this?" and "How should we do this?" are two very different questions.
        tptacek 13y ago
        That's a fair point for why your argument is germane to HN, but for what it's worth I still don't agree with the argument.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

steveklabnik 13y ago

An ad hominem would mean that I am saying they're wrong. My argument is not Google is an advertising company, therefore SPDY is bad. My argument is Google is an advertising company, and the largest single entity on the Internet, and therefore, their actions deserve a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm not sure that we've been giving them enough skepticism. SPDY does have good points, and bad points. I just saw a lot of chatter from people who want to ignore the bad points simply because of where the spec came from.

brown9-2 13y ago
But why is an advertising company deserve more skepticism than a company that sells operating systems or database servers?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, an advertising company has incentives to collect and process as much data about individuals as possible. This is Google's core competency. Oh, and in Google's case specifically, they now control the largest web site, one of the largest web browsers, (with this) the protocol it talks to, and they're attempting to supersede JavaScript too... and one of the largest client-side frameworks. The list goes on and on. The largest mobile phone OS. Email provider. (?) Working on social network...
tyre 13y ago
Google also handles more traffic then almost any company on the planet, so their involvement in a discussion about transporting bits is, well, not really that shocking. The issue is that you're throwing around them being an advertising company as a negative without any discernible proof that it has negatively affected the outcome. What, specifically (and please spare us the 'rhetorical flourishes') has been proposed that is unfairly biased towards advertising? Which parts should we be skeptical about?
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Sure, but bigger and smaller scale operations have different needs. The internet isn't supposed to be about what's best for the big guys, it's supposed to be about what's best for humanity. I've mentioned specifics elsewhere in this thread, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012906
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    The "specifics" in the other threads are more ad hominem. You're saying "we should be wary of what Google does" without actually mentioning what's there in the spec to be wary about. You're saying "we shouldn't trust Google to pass specs unchecked", people are saying "but we aren't: we've read the spec, and it's good", and you're saying "yeah, but we shouldn't trust Google".
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      > without actually mentioning what's there in the spec to be wary about. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088 And, as I mention elsewhere, it's not just the spec, it's the general trend of Google dominating the web. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468
      - StavrosK 13y ago
smutticus 13y ago
Unless you can point to a specific point in this IETF draft which furthers Google's interests while diminishing others' I'm going to ignore you.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  There is more to the world than a technical draft, you can't just abstract away the rest of everything else. For technical critiques, I commented earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088
  - chc 13y ago
    > There is more to the world than a technical draft, you can't just abstract away the rest of everything else. Then maybe you should actually bring these things up. You seem to be playing coy and throwing around innuendo. If you have real, substantive concerns about something, I think the conversation would be greatly improved by actually bringing those up rather than just casting aspersions about Google.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      I have brought them up, this isn't my only comment in this thread.

gnosis 13y ago

There are a large number of Google employees and stock holders on HN, and it would not be at all surprising if they leapt to Google's defense for non-technical reasons. It would be enlightening to see the defenders of Google disclosing whether they have any financial or other interest in Google. To complement that disclosure, any attackers of Google should likewise disclose whether they have any financial or other interests in Google's competitors.

cromwellian 13y ago
It would help if people just criticize on the spec based on the technical merits.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I agree that technical critiques are good, but technology is social. You can't abstract away the rest of the real world. We need both kinds.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    A reasonable argument would say that we don't need the social and political stuff in standards discussions, which should be based instead on engineering.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      Absolutely. This is why I wouldn't make these comments on the IETF mailing list. I do think that HN is an appropriate venue, this is very much a social place. "Should we be doing this?" and "How should we do this?" are two very different questions.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        That's a fair point for why your argument is germane to HN, but for what it's worth I still don't agree with the argument.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]