Google Employee Accuses WEI-Opponents of Being “Criminals”

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_kGO22g/m/0doc7unxAQAJ

by bhaney • 3 years ago

94 71 3 years ago

groups.google.com

centmot• 3 years ago

Buddy's gotta succeed at his OKRs at any cost.

TheSwordsman2• 3 years ago

Gotta pad that performance review/promo packet.

esprehn• 3 years ago

If you knew Rick you'd know that he's a person of principles and what you're saying couldn't be further from the truth.

riffic• 3 years ago

that's a scientology tactic too

deaddodo• 3 years ago

Bad faith arguments and accusations existed well before scientology/the alt-right/religious extremists/corporate draconians/etc existed.

It probably goes back as far as complex oral communication goes.

snerbles3• 3 years ago

Certainly.

However, everyone is the hero of their own story - even those boogeymen thought they were doing some form of good in their sophistry. The WEI devs apparently do too.

mplewis• 3 years ago

Ah yes, we can't hear your complaints – some people were being abusive, and so we have to ignore all the feedback. Thanks, Google!

rbyers7• 3 years ago

Did you read the rest of the thread? Plenty of really good constructive yet forceful feedback on that thread which I was applauding and celebrating.

appleflaxen• 3 years ago

These are the engineers who've sold the world (wide web).

version_five• 3 years ago

Note also the hammering on the "code of conduct". These are basically designed to be weaponized to shut down anything that whoever is in charge doesnt like under the guise of "anything else would be creating an unsafe working environment" to quote the google employee.

richbell3• 3 years ago

People describing criticism as behavior that makes things "unsafe" is another common tactic. Your legitimate complaints aren't valid because I don't like your, or someone else's, tone.

TheSwordsman2• 3 years ago

I think there are many people who legitimately feel unsafe when they feel uncomfortable, which is an a super unfortunate situation because it makes critical conversations much harder. Even harder when the people delivering critical feedback do so in a poor way. If only humans weren't so complicated.

rbyers7• 3 years ago

Did you see my point later in the thread about moderators like me explicitly approving all the posts which were arguing forcefully (but respectfully) against WEI? I think it's pretty clear we're not shutting down respectful disagreement, only abusive and threatening disagreement.

mdwelsh• 3 years ago

I’m no fan of the WEI proposal, but the headline here is inaccurate. Rick expressed a belief that criminals were amongst those voicing concern over the proposal, not claiming that all opponents are criminals, as the headline suggests.

richbell3• 3 years ago

That's a distinction without a difference in my mind. Claiming that criminals are against the proposal is "poisoning the well", even if he's not accusing _all critics_ of being criminals.

my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies

predictabl33• 3 years ago

The notion that this is poisoning the well is also supported by the general pattern: retreating on an idea that others thought was bad, avoiding literally any discussion of the technical/cultural criticism (despite that it apparently still existed legitimately enough to postpone the proposal for now) and 2/3rd or more of the post spent implying that [all|some|who knows] of the opponents were abusive bullies, and that maybe the idea was actually fine. (Setting the stage to absolutely re-introduce with the new framing "inauthentic traffic" in 6 months.)

Note also, avoiding any discussion of the web open or how it entered into the decision to postpone, supposedly. Though, that also wasn't said, just sort of implied with the half-hearted smiley-faced plea for compromising.

I am not emotionally invested because I see this as inevitable and don't care, I'll go live in the woods soon anyway, but this is just icky to read.

Brian_K_White• 3 years ago

If he didn't intend to make specifically that association, then why did he make specifically that statement?

Why not, say, the librarians?

So, he chose to speak about a specific thing, and so it's perfectly fair to critique exactly that specific thing, which he chose to highlight.

superkuh• 3 years ago

I think what's happening here is that he's just too deep in to google's corporate culture and can't imagine normal people perceiving google as a threat. His first paragraph is basically this,

"Thank you for your comments. We are not going to listen to your comments. We're surprised that not listening to your comments has led to people trying to contact through other means. The only reason I can think of to object to WEI is crime so enough of you are probably criminals that I'm going to mention it in the first paragraph as an accusation."

nabogh• 3 years ago

Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies

To me this is definitely not "accusing WEI-Opponents of Being Criminals". I don't support WEI but to claim that's what he's saying here is very dishonest.

n422• 3 years ago

I'm trying hard not to read this as being more encouraged to do the thing people are upset with him for doing because they are upset with him for doing it, which just seems sociopathic

readthenotes1• 3 years ago

Which seems sociopathic: - to pursue a course that others oppose more vigorously because of the opposition - for someone to be encouraged by that reaction ?

Neither seem a sign of sociopathy to me.

From the mayo clinic:

"mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior."

jplona• 3 years ago

An alternative read is that the poster is trying to discourage further physical threats, doxxing, and other abusive behavior they're receiving for doing their jobs, by appealing to the bad actors' self-interest.

roenxi• 3 years ago

It is an unfair rhetorical trick on both sides. In terms of orders-of-magnitude there numbers in the debate there are probably something like hundreds of people who are appalled by WEI and of those maybe there are single digits of them are criminals. AND there are criminals who support the WEI.

The argument is also foolish. Almost the entire legal system is supported by criminals, it is nothing but a series of controls making it more likely that people don't face punishment. Criminals would _love_ stuff like prosecutors having to provide 'evidence' and juries and whatnot.

Just because criminals are in favour of something doesn't make the thing bad. Criminals can be philosophically correct, just like the rest of us.

throwawayadvsec2• 3 years ago

It's a bit extreme to put it like this, but is it that far from the truth?

Besides black hat stuff, and grey hat stuff like mass scraping, who would that bother?

noident• 3 years ago

"Grey hat" mass scraping is what allowed Google to exist in the first place. Now they want to pull the ladder up behind them.

throwawayadvsec2• 3 years ago

Google have a specific easy to detect user agent when they're scraping websites. WEI wouldn't prevent them from scraping websites.

tomrod2• 3 years ago

Terrible rehash of "what, I got nothing to hide!"

Yes you do. Maybe not from the powers that be today, but the recent rise in authoritarism across the world shows that no country is immune to abusing technology.

Just freaking stop making the web user hostile, please. If your advertising model no longer works, great, move on to a business model that works instead of making yourself a target for the FTC and trustbusting.

zmmmmm• 3 years ago

This headline is far more inflammatory than anything written in the post it points to.

gmerc• 3 years ago

What I do is good therefore people critiquing it negatively must be evil. Rationalization is a powerful drug.

predictabl33• 3 years ago

The way this post is written is so transparently manipulatively. The volume of text spent tone-policing, chiding, and a nice ole ~"well, now I'm really going to scorch the earth since you were mean about my idea" to boot. With basically no actual discussion of the specific points that moved the needle, or further clarification of the scope, or what other approaches will be investigated. And instead of that, another admonishment of the audience, with a sort of implication that everyone on the team is too wounded by online discourse to share any more insight.

Bonus points if you also have suggestions or data on how to actually make meaningful progress on the problem of inauthentic traffic in a way that's fully consistent with the openness of the web :-).

Some things just aren't consistent, and I don't believe that you know what "the openness of the web" means, or really care :-).

"the problem of inauthentic traffic"

also, the way this phrase (Which does not appear in the Explainer a single time) is used and is somehow the most concrete anything in the entire post, makes me think this is PR-ified.

I hope you all have a stress-free weekend

Well, this has been stewing for a few days, but I've basically accepting that computing as I knew it for the first 25-ish years of my life is headed for obsolescence. I'm not thrilled, but not stressed I guess.

rbyers7• 3 years ago

Some things just aren't consistent, and I don't believe that you know what "the openness of the web" means, or really care :-).

I certainly could have done a better job trying to convince you of that in that post. Perhaps my follow-up was better? https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_...

FWIW the whole reason I keep working on the web platform at Google is because it's the place I think I can do the most good for openness on the web. See eg. https://thenewstack.io/browser-vendors-aim-to-heal-developer..., https://www.chromium.org/blink/platform-predictability/. "The Master Switch" my Tim Wu is my gospell.

If I and other chromium leads didn't actually care about openness then you'd be able to tell pretty clearly because Chromium would be closed source, we wouldn't have big programs like wpt.fyi, and we wouldn't bother even trying to talk about this stuff on open mailing lists.

rolph3• 3 years ago

Google Tries to Defend Its Web Environment Integrity as Critics Slam It as Dangerous

https://techreport.com/news/google-tries-to-defend-its-web-e...

drewbug014• 3 years ago

If I and other chromium leads didn't actually care about openness then you'd be able to tell pretty clearly because Chromium would be closed source, we wouldn't have big programs like wpt.fyi, and we wouldn't bother even trying to talk about this stuff on open mailing lists.

I do actually believe you care about this. I think your employer once cared; but now they fundamentally do not (as a whole; I'm aware that Googlers are not a monolith).

There are a lot of people shouting at you that this isn't what an "open web" means, and that it's directly counter to the "open web." I imagine that's a difficult thing to square: your own feelings about the open web, and this proposal. How do you make them fit?

One way, of course, is to label the people shouting as criminals. ;)

If you are feeling that tension like I suspect you are, then sit with it for awhile. Really examine your principles and try to decide if this proposal actually lines up with your values. If you find that you cannot actually align this proposal with your principles - then I urge you to do something about it. Kill the proposal from the inside. You'd stand a lot better chance of doing that than I, an outsider, would.

yjftsjthsd-h2• 3 years ago

If I and other chromium leads didn't actually care about openness then you'd be able to tell pretty clearly because Chromium would be closed source, we wouldn't have big programs like wpt.fyi, and we wouldn't bother even trying to talk about this stuff on open mailing lists.

That only helps if anyone believes you'll listen to anything on the mailing lists. Right now it looks like you publish things there so you can claim community input, and then go ahead with whatever you wanted to do in the first place.

concinds2• 3 years ago

Hey. I know you’re well-meaning and the proposal isn’t meant to harm the web. But please, retract it.

WEI’s purpose is to block out bad traffic. The question isn’t whether all website owners will block non-attesting clients once this is rolled out. It’s whether any can. If they can, some will. The most promising way to address this are holdbacks. But they can’t work, because:

a) if 5% of pageloads fail, users will get used to it and adapt. When the load fails, they’ll reload. Holdbacks can’t reasonably disincentivize blocking non-attesting clients. Some websites really want to, and they will. They won’t care about losing 1-2% of visits.

b) Websites can just tell users how to bypass it: “Authentication failed. Try reloading, or switch to an authorized browser.”

c) Some governments (like the French) are already trying to legally mandate stuff roughly similar to WEI, though thankfully the methods they use are much milder than WEI. You’re opening Pandora’s box, just like Apple did with Communication Safety. Why couldn’t a government legally require all banks to block non-attesting clients? Then, this proposal will have enabled financial discrimination and de-banking, for something as benign as not being able to have an up-to-date browser on an “expired” Chromebook (outdated browsers would presumably fail attestation, and people with old laptops who can’t afford new ones shouldn’t be shut out of the economy).

Holdbacks can’t work. There’s no form WEI can take that wouldn’t cause what (I trust) you’re trying to avoid.

tomrod2• 3 years ago

the most good for openness on the web.

With all due respect, WEI is antithetical to this value and goal.

The question is, will you hear people who don't agree that your proposal will result in an open web, or continue classifying many people who want an open, non-toll-gated web as criminals?

stusmall• 3 years ago

There is some pretty disingenuous takes in here. He isn't calling people who don't like the API "criminals". It isn't about using the Code of Conduct about people who disagree with the direction of the project is going. The post is very clear and very specific that it is about people threatening physical violence and doxing.

rbyers7• 3 years ago

Thank you!

drewbug014• 3 years ago

Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies.

Intimidation is bad (and this fact should not need to be stated).

But… this is otherwise absolutely terrible. If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process.

I am vehemently against this proposal, and my reasons have nothing to do with criminality. Tarring all opposition as criminals is a really shitty tactic and is pretty obviously done in bad faith.

rbyers7• 3 years ago

I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that I "tarred all opposition as criminals". Still I admit my wording could have been better, please see follow-up: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_....

If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process.

Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse?

drewbug014• 3 years ago

I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that I "tarred all opposition as criminals". Still I admit my wording could have been better, please see follow-up

It is not disingenuous, it is a plain reading of the words written and it seems I am not the only one who read it in the same way. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts further; that seems like a prudent course of action.

However, labeling a comment as “disingenuous” is somewhat concerning to me. That particular label is typically used when one is trying to suggest that the labeled comment is somehow deceptive. From Merriam Webster’s “Did You Know?” section:

A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it is delivered with the intent to deceive or to serve some hidden purpose.

If that is indeed how you intended to use “disingenuous,” I would note that it serves to undercut any utility your clarification might have served.

I’m concerned you’re very primed to view everything around this as highly suspicious and that those involved have ulterior motives. Speaking as one internet nerd to another: take a break, go for a walk, clear your mind.

Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse?

Frankly, I don’t see how that matters at all. If you want to make an appeal to authority like that, go ahead - but it’s fairly transparent and I’m not otherwise inclined to engage with it except to say: your team is proposing to dramatically change the internet, which is a concern that extends far beyond your team and your place of employment. Making this all about your team reads as a way to shut down feedback you don’t like under the guise of “abuse.” Your intentions are almost besides the point: as your clarification notes, your employer has burned up just about all trust with the community at this point.

If you have a legitimate concern about threats of physical abuse, I would suggest that there are perhaps other avenues to deal with it other than “ignore all feedback from GitHub.” For starters, I’m fairly certain that’s against their terms of service and code of conduct.

yjftsjthsd-h2• 3 years ago

> If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process.
Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse?

See this, right here, is exactly the problem: Yes, threats of physical abuse are unacceptable. Nobody here is saying otherwise. Pretending that the presence of unacceptable threats somehow invalidates legitimate criticism, however, just makes you look dishonest.

pg_1234• 3 years ago

Not so long ago another autocratic power declared anything it didn't like to be criminal, i.e.:

- Jewish physicians were de-certified, and were no longer allowed to treat German patients.

- Jews were not allowed to own gardens.

- All Jewish-named streets in Germany were renamed.

- Jews were prohibited from cinemas, the opera, and concerts.

- Jewish children were banned from public schools.

... it didn't go well for everyone.

P.S. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law ;-)

jacknews• 3 years ago

Very misleading headline, he's saying he suspects some of those doing the intimidation might be criminals. It's unnecessarily inflammatory language in any case.

But this whole attestation thing should be killed with fire.

Companies (or governments) have no business putting anything on machines that you own in order to prove you comply with their wishes.

predictabl33• 3 years ago

Future headline: Google Employee accuses HN commenter of "threatening kill[ing] with fire".

klipklop• 3 years ago

This guy wins tech worker buzzword bingo. I knew somewhere he would use the phrase “stakeholders”.

“Bonus points” for using a completely arbitrary code of conduct to decide what is safe. What a joke.

Of course nobody should doxx him, but I think it’s fair game to criticize somebody who wants to end web browsing as we know it. What he wants is extremely unpopular.

kvonhorn2• 3 years ago

It's somewhat ironic to me that some folks arguing passionately for the openness of the web (something I and many of the proposal contributors are also passionate about) are relying on physical threats and other forms of abuse

For a lot of us here in the US, we claim that we would defend our First Amendment right to free speech with violence if necessary. For some of us, the web is where spend a significant amount of effort exercising that freedom. And I know that there are quite a few of us who have looked at the WEI proposal, and are concerned that our ability to exercise our First Amendment right to free speech on the web could be curtailed should WEI be adopted by major websites.

Given what I know about Americans and our love of free speech and guns, I don't find the threats and abuse that Rick Byers claims to be receiving to be ironic at all.

richbell3• 3 years ago

Given what I know about Americans and our love of free speech and guns, I don't find the threats and abuse that Rick Byers claims to be receiving to be ironic at all.

It's also not a new or uncommon reaction when people see something they care about being destroyed but feel powerless to stop it.

For example, this well known quote: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/605697

kvonhorn2• 3 years ago

Lol, I hadn't heard that before. Thanks for sharing.

000ooo000• 3 years ago

This guy's post is a painful read. The "I don't give in to criminals or bullies" part is just bizarre. The entire premise of WEI is so incredibly obvious that "inauthentic traffic" and "safety" is hard to read without cringing.

erik_seaberg• 3 years ago

Modifying your own machine’s kernel does not make you “inauthentic,” it makes you a worthy heir to a line of clever tool-users.

methou• 3 years ago

tbh, I believe those people behind WEI deserves a bit of the blames of intentionally devising tools that breaks open web for some corporate profits.

Chromium is popular enough to force feed WEI to the world, and most of users would have no choice but to accept this pure evil.

Imaging that you are planning for a campaign to nudge all chromium based browser users to switch to non-chromium browsers by showing a banner everywhere, the list you could provide as alternatives are literally next to []. (maybe webkit, imagine persuading someone to switch to Apple just for this)

(btw, there's a gecko based browser Waterfox which is awesome)

LightHugger• 3 years ago

I mean this person is trying to infringe on the human rights of a large portion of the people on the planet. I don't really care what they have to say, past a certain point.

Always remember that large enough corporations are simply a form of government.

pseudo0• 3 years ago

Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies

Trying to change the narrative to doxxing and harassment sounds a lot like the classic influencer playbook for dealing with controversies:

1. Influencer/organization screws up.

2. This attracts negative attention.

3. Influencer/organization comes out with a statement that they are being bullied, doxxed, harassed, etc. Often evidence of this is absent or questionable.

4. They use their network and media contacts to make the story about (3) instead of (1).

A manager who cares about their staff should be aware that the only way to deal with harassment and abuse is to publicly ignore it and handle matters internally. Don't give the trolls any attention whatsoever. Any response will exacerbate the issue. If someone has been doxxed and there is a credible threat, put them up in a hotel on the other side of town for a few nights and contact law enforcement.

Google Employee Accuses WEI-Opponents of Being “Criminals”

Related Stories