Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification Specification Title: Web Environment Integrity API Specification or proposal URL (if available): https://rupertbenwiser.github.io/Web-E...
Yep, that is also a concern that I previously mentioned elsewhere [1][2] and even explain how it can be used to coerce adoption of browsers or assist in the installation of government-created spyware [3].
It’s not like I’m unaware of or rug-sweeping the existential threat that Web Environment Integrity poses to extensions, how Google likely has an ulterior motive behind it, or how it doesn’t actually benefit the end user in any possible way. I bring up or mention my stance on at least one of those points somewhere in the comment threads where I talk about WEI. I just don’t mention all of them in every reply I make, since they aren’t relevant to my replies.
The more replies I make, the more comments I get accusing me of wilfully ignoring some part of WEI or another. I don’t feel like that’s the case, but I recognize it’s difficult to extend charitability to me when my first comment in the thread seems to be anti-anti-Google.
Anyways, the whole point of this entire branch of comments and replies wasn’t “WEI is innocent.” It was to encourage others not make or trust un-cited explanations of technologies or events that have high stakes and emotional influence behind them.
It’s fine to point out the negatives of something, but it’s not fine to frame them as an explanation of the thing. Keep the explanations factual and informative to teach others about the topic and context, and then use examples to demonstrate the problems. Riling people up with factually-incorrect information and having them disseminate that information undermines our ability to be taken seriously by people who hold enough power to do something about the problem.
Yes, and websites will soon begin blocking any browser other than those in a very short allowlist.
Yep, that is also a concern that I previously mentioned elsewhere [1] [2] and even explain how it can be used to coerce adoption of browsers or assist in the installation of government-created spyware [3].
It’s not like I’m unaware of or rug-sweeping the existential threat that Web Environment Integrity poses to extensions, how Google likely has an ulterior motive behind it, or how it doesn’t actually benefit the end user in any possible way. I bring up or mention my stance on at least one of those points somewhere in the comment threads where I talk about WEI. I just don’t mention all of them in every reply I make, since they aren’t relevant to my replies.
The more replies I make, the more comments I get accusing me of wilfully ignoring some part of WEI or another. I don’t feel like that’s the case, but I recognize it’s difficult to extend charitability to me when my first comment in the thread seems to be anti-anti-Google.
Anyways, the whole point of this entire branch of comments and replies wasn’t “WEI is innocent.” It was to encourage others not make or trust un-cited explanations of technologies or events that have high stakes and emotional influence behind them.
It’s fine to point out the negatives of something, but it’s not fine to frame them as an explanation of the thing. Keep the explanations factual and informative to teach others about the topic and context, and then use examples to demonstrate the problems. Riling people up with factually-incorrect information and having them disseminate that information undermines our ability to be taken seriously by people who hold enough power to do something about the problem.