Re: Trust

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Milan Zamazal <pdm@zamazal.org> wrote:

> >>>>> "MW" == Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes:
>
>     MW> We proposed it in W3C for the same reasons any proposes anything
>     MW> in W3C - because an open standardization process produces better
>     MW> results - including better interoperability - than a closed
>     MW> one. It's perplexing to find proponents of open standards
>     MW> arguing that something should be standardized behind closed
>     MW> doors instead.
>
>     MW> Personally, I'm not looking for W3C to take a political position
>     MW> - just for it to facilitate the technical work.
>
> Do I understand it right that if e.g. some governments decided to
> propose and standardize a Web censorship system, W3C would be a proper
> place to define it?


No, you do not.


>  Internet censorship is reality, there is demand for
> it, readers of approved content would benefit from it while those
> seeking for censored content would be no worse with it, and there is no
> evidence censorship is going to spread to other countries just because
> of its standardization.  If there was a demand for such a Web standard
> then W3C, as a technical body not taking political positions, should
> satisfy it and help making the censorship standardization process open
> and producing better results.  Why should anybody complain?  It's not
> exactly matching EME, but I can see more similarities than differences
> and very good match with pro-EME arguments.
>

Indeed, it's not matching EME. In fact it's very far from EME.

1) Noone has proposed discussing that topic
2) No user agents have expressed an interest in implementing such features
3) If any UA did, they would rightly lose market share precipitously due to
the resultant press and political reaction.

The last point would be reflection of the fact that absence of government
censorship is widely seen as a cornerstone of democracy.

This is to say that one bar that we have to keep out such things is a
requirement for commercial interest in implementation. There are others, of
course.

However, as a general rule, if multiple user agent implementors are
discussing support for some controversial feature then, yes, I would prefer
that they discussed it openly, rather than keeping it private.

...Mark