undefined | Better HN

0 pointslucideer6y ago0 comments

> W3C is not neutral, and not only are they not neutral, but the RIAA and MPAA are people with enough sway to have messed up the entire web multiple times (see: making EME a standard).

> A neutral party sounds great! The W3C should not get to be involved, however.

Perhaps I got lost along the way, but... we're still talking about Twitter here right?

Are you seriously calling out the W3C, an open but obviously flawed organisation, for finally capitulating on DRM, after huge public drama and well-documented opposition from within the W3C. DRM is something entities such as Twitter use as a matter of course; there is no public discourse, nor documentation.

This isn't even as basic as pots calling kettles black, any reservations one could have about W3C as an org are positively laughable when the alternative is a standard stewarded by a corporation with the size and influence of Twitter.

0 comments

kick6y ago

The point of that was to note that the W3C doesn't care about the user.

John Sullivan had a great tweet about this:

https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839

Fundamentally, the W3C does not work in the interest of the user, and shouldn't be trusted.

Get some of the Scuttlebutt guys or the Diaspora guys to contribute! Don't get the W3C, no one who's part of the W3C should have a say in anything.

Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.

lucideerOP6y ago

> Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.

Agree with most of your comment, but I can't see where this is coming from. I would be shocked if any "standard" coming from Twitter would be anything but broken.

Again, you're saying W3C doesn't work in the interests of the user, but ignoring that Twitter works actively against the interest of the user.

W3C isn't ideal, but the alternative being discussed is devoid of any merit whatsoever.

kick6y ago

I agree with the spirit of your comment, but:

The alternative being discussed is Twitter appointing a different neutral party: if they're bending to the W3C, they're already appointing a "neutral party" to do the work for them, the only difference is changing who they trust from another giant organization that's very clearly apathetic about user interests to one that does: the SSBC would be perfect, for example.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kick6y ago

The point of that was to note that the W3C doesn't care about the user.

John Sullivan had a great tweet about this:

https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839

Fundamentally, the W3C does not work in the interest of the user, and shouldn't be trusted.

Get some of the Scuttlebutt guys or the Diaspora guys to contribute! Don't get the W3C, no one who's part of the W3C should have a say in anything.

Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.

lucideerOP6y ago

> Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.

Agree with most of your comment, but I can't see where this is coming from. I would be shocked if any "standard" coming from Twitter would be anything but broken.

Again, you're saying W3C doesn't work in the interests of the user, but ignoring that Twitter works actively against the interest of the user.

W3C isn't ideal, but the alternative being discussed is devoid of any merit whatsoever.

kick6y ago

I agree with the spirit of your comment, but:

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse