zlacker

> Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both defend the work itself and place yourself outside of the process as a "chair."

I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community).

> But it is DRM because it can be used, in effect, like DRM. You are missing the point that most of the community sees this as DRM-like technology, with all of its warts, whether you agree with that conclusion or not.

OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM?

>>yoavwe+(OP)
There are 11 issues on the repo matching a search for "DRM".

Please list all the comments with the word "DRM" you read, and justify any you skipped.

Then we can write an explanation meeting your requirements. I hope you'll read that one!

>>yoavwe+(OP)
Please listen to the feedback you have universally gotten from the community. Stop.

>>yoavwe+(OP)
(Note that I'm not the parent)

The first goal of the proposal is to

> Allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device.

That is, to give web servers the ability to Digitally restrict (or Manage) a user's Rights to access content on a device and software stack of their choice.

Can you explain in what ways this is not DRM?

>>yoavwe+(OP)
It's establishing whether I have the right to view or use this site, as determined by whether some far off entity such as a Google approves of my computer or not.

>>yoavwe+(OP)
> I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community).

You mean the repo which is closed for new issues, on which Google has shut down commentary, past the weekend deadline it promised for re-opening commentary? This is the open work process under examination?

> OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM?

I would be glad to take a crack at this, but smarter people have spent their whole lives advancing humankind's understanding on this topic. They should speak on it, not me. I have my own private suspicions about what they will say though.

>>sgammo+jg2
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com...

>>yoavwe+(OP)
Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance?

There is no reason to expect the community to be “tolerant” and “kind” to an intolerant proposal.

Get off your high horse of neutrality, because it’s not neutral. Proposals like this will be treated like a hostile attack because that is what they are. If you’re unable to see that then that problem is on you not _everyone else_.

This is extremely similar to the same arguments leftists give of _not giving a platform to fascists_. Giving that platform is legitimizing them.

This proposal is being seen as a technological fascist attack on the web, and you’re getting that signal. Except you’re categorizing that signal as noise.