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
It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard).

You know, if your government body of choice came up with a terrible idea in a draft bill and enraged the population, it would not be appropriate for them to go on TV and say “the population should offer constructive criticism in the form of legal arguments”. So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?

>>scroll+kl
>It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard).

Yes, and you can see how many people are being ignored. The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization.

>So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?

For example, people may think coming up with legal arguments may be an effective way to engage in the proposal and try to shut it down. The article describes that legal arguments will not be productive.

>>charci+rn
Which might be wrong of course. The legal argument that this smells of monopoly abuse and might be a factor in the coming forced split of alphabet could actually stop such proposals most effectively.