Hacker News Reader

Comment by lozenge | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Once the API is there it can be used for forbidding ad blockers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com