←back to thread

756 points dagurp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Pannoniae ◴[] No.36882314[source]
There is zero point debating this in technical detail because the proposal itself is evil. Don't get distracted by tone policing and how they scream you must be civil and whatnot.

Our best hope is kicking up a huge fuss so legislators and media will notice, so Google will be under pressure. It won't make them cancel the feature but don't forget to remember that they aren't above anti-trust law. There is a significant chance that some competition authority will step in if the issue doesn't die down. Our job is to make sure it won't be forgotten really quickly.

replies(4): >>36882382 #>>36882512 #>>36883092 #>>36886092 #
shortrounddev2 ◴[] No.36882512[source]
I can see it being useful to have a feature which could validate if another user on a website is a human. e.g: on reddit or twitter, the user you're talking to has a little checkmark (not the blue checkmark) next to their name if they've been WEI validated. Rather than refusing to let a user use the platform, just letting other users know that the person you're talking to isn't a bot
replies(2): >>36882545 #>>36883004 #
erosenbe0 ◴[] No.36883004[source]
If McDonald's required 12 year-olds to use an ordering app because their banknotes might be stolen, would that be a reasonable compromise? Foreclosing the possibility of children not being tracked (which is illegal, btw) in exchange for some marginal benefit for big tech?
replies(1): >>36883043 #
1. OfSanguineFire ◴[] No.36883043[source]
Funnily enough, the McDonalds app has been claimed to require Safety Net verification on Android.