zlacker

>>KoftaB+(OP)
The section, "Don't assume a hidden agenda", is a rather irrelevant response to the outrage, because the agenda we don't like is written out in the proposal. It's not hidden, it's rather transparent and it's the dystopian nightmare we want to avoid.

From the proposal:

> Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. This trust may assume that the client environment is honest about certain aspects of itself, keeps user data and intellectual property secure, and is transparent about whether or not a human is using it. This trust is the backbone of the open internet, critical for the safety of user data and for the sustainability of the website’s business.

> Some examples of scenarios where users depend on client trust include:

> Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

> Users want to know they are interacting with real people on social websites but bad actors often want to promote posts with fake engagement (for example, to promote products, or make a news story seem more important). Websites can only show users what content is popular with real people if websites are able to know the difference between a trusted and untrusted environment.

> Users playing a game on a website want to know whether other players are using software that enforces the game's rules.

> Users sometimes get tricked into installing malicious software that imitates software like their banking apps, to steal from those users. The bank's internet interface could protect those users if it could establish that the requests it's getting actually come from the bank's or other trustworthy software.

>>creato+on
The advice is relevant then. You can argue about the stated agenda and use cases instead of assuming a hidden one.

Whether there is a hidden agenda or not, the authors of the spec can just reply, "that isn't the agenda" and ignore everything in your comment that followed from it.

>>lozeng+3p
As far as I can tell, the criticism against the proposal was mostly surrounding the clearly stated goals of the proposal, such as protecting intellectual property. Didn't see much wild speculation, even though the internet is usually filled to the brim with it. So this advice as general advice makes sense, but is odd as a response to this situation.

>>creato+Ep
The listed use-cases are not what I typically see complaints about.

What I do see a lot: * This will be used to detect and block ad blockers. * Open source users can't do attestation and will get locked out of parts of the web.

These are not goals of this proposal from what I can tell. And there are indeed discussions how to avoid those negative externalities.

>>pptr+0t
"Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots."

That's as clear as day, they won't let you view the page with ad blocking.

>>lozeng+Sw
That's debatable. I read it like this only affects the charging model. Advertisers only get charged for impressions from humans, not bots. This is enough to prevent fraud.

>>pptr+kI
Once the API is there it can be used for forbidding ad blockers.