> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies
They have apologized for using the word criminals & bullies in a broader context and I appreciate that. However, the initial part of the comment is very telling of how they view those who oppose.
This proposal will mainly disrupt ad-blockers, rooted devices and any one who is willing to maintain control of their own tech stack and they are considered illegal/unethical businesses.
I can't ignore the parallels with the real world here.
Authoritarian government introduces laws that restrict freedom and privacy. People oppose and protest. Government doubles down and proclaims only those who do illegal activities are protesting and they are the ones that have something to hide. Seeing how many there are, we urgently need these laws.
Further down in the response:
> the whole point of designing in the open and having public debate is to find reasonable compromises between stakeholders with very different perspectives
You can either introduce a hostile feature in one go or through a series of "compromises" which is also known as "Boiling the frog" strategy.
Unless the current one is abandoned and there's a radically different approach, I don't think there's any scope for compromise in the current proposal.
> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies
> Kick a puppy
> Get attacked for kicking a puppy
> "These attacks make me MORE likely to keep kicking puppies, as I don't give in to intimidation from criminals and bullies that want healthy puppies for their nefarious ends."
Mr. Wisner should grow thicker skin - if this is the reaction now wait until the real roasting begins for what is probably the shittiest proposal of all time.
In a just world anyone supporting this initiative would be imprisoned in my books. It's a time bombed crime against humanity waiting to happen. They know what they are doing and got called out on it.
"Stakeholders" is just an euphemism for "the people with the money". The "stakeholders" want it this way, "finding compromises" just means figuring out how to get everyone else to accept it.
From official proposal forum: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_...
> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies
They have apologized for using the word criminals & bullies in a broader context and I appreciate that. However, the initial part of the comment is very telling of how they view those who oppose.
This proposal will mainly disrupt ad-blockers, rooted devices and any one who is willing to maintain control of their own tech stack and they are considered illegal/unethical businesses.
I can't ignore the parallels with the real world here.
Authoritarian government introduces laws that restrict freedom and privacy. People oppose and protest. Government doubles down and proclaims only those who do illegal activities are protesting and they are the ones that have something to hide. Seeing how many there are, we urgently need these laws.
Further down in the response:
> the whole point of designing in the open and having public debate is to find reasonable compromises between stakeholders with very different perspectives
You can either introduce a hostile feature in one go or through a series of "compromises" which is also known as "Boiling the frog" strategy.
Unless the current one is abandoned and there's a radically different approach, I don't think there's any scope for compromise in the current proposal.