zlacker

>>KoftaB+(OP)
While I fully understand the feeling of the author being a Googler doing their job, being a cog in the machine and launching something to advance their promo case, would be visibly upset that people who actually care about the outcome are actively fighting their project, I also think from the users' perspective, dealing with a powerful corporation, it is the right thing to do to bury this type of danger as soon as possible.

(The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable; can't really tell if it is naïveté or deception.)

>>tgma+fd
>The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable

It is essentially just asking for constructive feedback. When people just say not to do it, insult the author, or make assumptions about the proposal that aren't true the comments are not actionable.

Even if an issue is political you can still make a constructive argument on the risks that adopting the proposal has.

>>charci+nk
Here's how they respond to 'constructive arguments': >>36855429 . Especially this part: https://danshumway.com/blog/chrome-autoplay/

>>goku12+Ko
From the first link:

> according to Google there's no such thing as a harmful feature and Google's approach is never wrong; it just might need refining

This is some grade-A toxic behaviour from google. It gives the same vibes as the infuriatingly phrased: “oh sweetly you just don’t understand”