"Constructive" involvement is not ethical when the goal is harmful

[ghost]

I see we're going hard on the idea that building things is always superior to not building things.

It's literally better for you to do nothing instead of continue work on this proposal. There's not a small change that will improve this, it's a dispute in the overall nature of the project.

[ThatOneCalculator]

Totally agreed. While I can see how comments like "do not" aren't particularly helpful in terms of providing analysis or thought, it's the overwhelming negative reaction to these proposals that should be a clear indicator that the vast majority of people who have heard of this proposal and understand its implications agree that it's a harmful idea to the open web.

[alexisvl]

(Also that thread is full of constructive replies and painting it as unconstructive because there are a few replies that are just cranky is utterly childish.)

[proudmuslim-dev]

I'm not going to engage "constructively" with this. It's a joke and deserves to be mocked, anyone offering genuine suggestions to these people is deluding themselves

[dmarti]

Google has made specific, legally-binding commitments to the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK, that cover oversight of Google's efforts to develop in-browser ad systems.

Because those commitments are already in place, at this point it is probably more constructive to read the commitments at: https://competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/24/cma-secures-final-privacy-sandbox-commitments-from-google/ and contact the CMA at the address on that page with any concerns about how a particular proposal would affect fair competition on the web.

This particular proposal is not listed in the most recent set of commitments I can see, but since it relates to in-browser advertising funcationality it seems like it should be covered.

[moralrecordings]

Constructive debate on a proposal like this is an incorrect response. If a water company proposed to pipe untreated sewage into a nature reserve because it is legal and saves a bunch of money, constructive debate would assume that the people behind the proposal had good intent but were simply unaware of the downsides. The fact that the proposal made it this far signals that the company believes the rotten idea at the core is fine and immutable, it's just a matter of detail to make it palatable.

Protest and mockery of the idea and the corporate interests behind it is the correct response.

By the own words of the proposal authors, the intent is for Google to leverage their dominance in mobile operating systems and web browsers to push this through as an "open" specification, to ultimately improve their dominance in the areas of targeted advertising and online surveillance. While I am sure other surveillance providers will find reason to celebrate, this is a proposal by Google for Google's interests.

This proposal is unquestionably good for Google's search business. The company already enjoys an advantage in search, where paywall systems will present untruncated content if the user agent is determined to be Googlebot. By constructing the bones of this new attestation system and the associated root of trust, Google will have a new mechanism to exclude other competitors from the online search market on the grounds of their crawlers being "inauthentic" activity.

In recent years, it has become clear that one of Google's revenue maximisation strategies has been to scrape and present "snippets", so that people don't need to visit the site and instead stay on the ad-laden Google UI. This in turn gives more leverage to Google to minimise the amount of ad revenue that makes it to publishers, who are now so starved of traffic and money that they are likely to agree to block "unattested" users if it means an improvement in their lot. For a recent example of this type of pressuring, see Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages feature; an attempt to force publishers into ceding their content as part of the Google UI, launched under the pretense of reducing page load times and with the carrot of an improved Google Search ranking.

This is also good for Google's web browser and mobile operating system businesses. Google would love nothing more than people switching to stock Chrome or buying a new Android device to maintain access to a website, much in the same way they have ratcheted the minimum API requirements on the Play Store so that older hardware can't access app updates. And there's evidence to suggest that once "attestation" is available for use, opting out even in non-publisher settings will not be an option; see the number of Android banking applications which refuse to run if the phone is unlocked.

This is a proposal by Google for Google's interests, and there is no iteration of it which does not lead to the internet becoming a worse place.

[Snukii]

The chair says this on his "please don't criticize us" page:

In cases where controversial browser proposals (or lack of adoption for features folks want, which is a related, but different, subject), it's not uncommon to see issues with dozens or even hundreds of comments from presumably well-intentioned folks, trying to influence the team working on the feature to change their minds.

In the many years I've been working on the web platform, I've yet to see this work. Not even once.

On the receiving end, this creates a deluge of emails that's very hard to sort out. While some of those may be full of technical insights, it's very hard to find them in that pile and distinguish them from the other forms of commentary. So while it may feel good to join a good old-fashioned internet pile-up, it's very unlikely to lead to the outcomes you actually want.

You should instead try to provide meaningful technical feedback (more on that in the next section), and do that in places where that signal is less likely to drown in the noise.

Sounds like they simply do not care about ethical or user concerns, technical facts are all that matter, which is disturbing.

[artillect]

I'd put more effort into this comment if I had the energy for it, but this proposal is incredibly harmful. I don't have much to add, but this will seriously restrict accessibility extensions and cut off disabled people from using large parts of the web. Please, seriously consider retracting this proposal entirely, for the good of the internet.

Edit: Also, seriously? Have you even thought about privacy? From: https://rupertbenwiser.github.io/Web-Environment-Integrity/#privacy

6.2. Privacy considerations
Todo

[joepie91]

Sounds like they simply do not care about ethical or user concerns, technical facts are all that matter, which is disturbing.

Correct - it's essentially just a corporatized version of "keep politics out of tech", with all the usual problems that that ideology of faux neutrality brings.

[axb21]

Google's anti-competitive practices should have been reigned in by US anti-trust enforcement long ago. That they keep doubling down on their attempts to own the web's content, which is not theirs to own, should probably not surprise us given that lack of enforcement. If they are allowed to continue down this path, someday we'll all find that anything we've ever posted online has legally become Google's property and we have no rights to it anymore, even though we never consented to giving them these rights (inb4 anyone starts nitpicking the details of that future--obviously I'm speculating but we can already see something like this taking shape and it's foolish to ignore it).

Like Microsoft in the 1990s, Google's very existence stops countless innovations from happening. Worse, they consistently try to expand the "kill zone" to exclude more and more and more innovation. They are a net negative on (tech) society now, in my view, and exist only to enrich themselves. They've made it clear they cannot get their own act together--and if it wasn't clear before this proposal should be clarifying--and they therefore need to be forced to change their ways. As with Microsoft in the 1990s, effective enforcement can lead to an explosion of innovation. Effective anti-trust enforcement actions taken against Google will likely benefit almost everyone. Even Google!

Mocking this proposal is great. I'd urge anyone who has the time, energy, and inclination to also explore ways to reign Google in more generally. We would do that if they were dumping raw sewage into the waterways, and we should do that here as well.

[AshtonKem]

(Also that thread is full of constructive replies and painting it as unconstructive because there are a few replies that are just cranky is utterly childish.)

It's also fundamentally dishonest. If you get a few cranky replies that's one thing, but the overwhelming condemnation of your professional peers is an absolutely valid reason to abandon something.

"Everyone hated it, but they didn't express their disapproval in the way I wanted them to, therefore I will disregard their feedback out of hand" is not an honest way to operate.

[jbruchon]

Sounds like they simply do not care about ethical or user concerns, technical facts are all that matter, which is disturbing.

Correct - it's essentially just a corporatized version of "keep politics out of tech", with all the usual problems that that ideology of faux neutrality brings.

It used to be possible to keep political activism and technology separate. That was toast after Donglegate.

[AshtonKem]

On the receiving end, this creates a deluge of emails that's very hard to sort out. While some of those may be full of technical insights, it's very hard to find them in that pile and distinguish them from the other forms of commentary. So while it may feel good to join a good old-fashioned internet pile-up, it's very unlikely to lead to the outcomes you actually want.

I need to write a longer blog post about this, but it is very hard to explain in short sentences how little sympathy I have for people who take positions of power and authority and then complain about the downsides.

Oh, a controversial web proposal created a deluge of emails? I cannot be bothered to even pretend like that's a real issue to worry about. Nobody is forcing these people to do this stuff.

Also, if the volume of feedback causes you to not consider said feedback, isn't that a tacit admission that you weren't really listening in the first place?

[Lana-chan]

It used to be possible to keep political activism and technology separate. That was toast after Donglegate.

big "this isn't a problem because it never affected me" vibes from you dude

[AshtonKem]

Dragging in culture war issues unrelated to this proposal is

1. Unlikely to change anyone's mind on said issues.

2. Distract from discussing this proposal.

3. Offer the authors of this proposal an excuse to disregard the issues raised.

If for some reason you want to re-litigate CoCs or (heaven help us) "donglegate", take it to a more appropriate repo. I'm sure W3C has a venue where issues with their CoC can be raised.