From the same person, further down in the thread:<p>> It's been pointed out to me that my wording could be taken to suggest that I think folks who oppose WEI are criminals. That was absolutely not my intent and I apologize for not being more careful in my wording. I'm also the kind of person who likes to run rooted devices (used to compile my own NetBSD kernel from scratch weekly), custom browser builds, etc. and so I sympathize heavily with that use case myself and don't see how I could support a proposal which seriously risked the outcome you describe - users of such devices / niche browsers being locked out of important parts ot the web. AFAIK there is no serious debate as to whether such an outcome would be acceptable for the web (it's not), the debate is whether this proposal could possibly achieve it's aims without causing such an outcome. There's been lots of strong words saying it's impossible to reduce fraud risk without threatening the openness of the web and perhaps that's right, but I, for one, am always willing to be shown that something I thought was impossible was in fact doable with sufficient ingenuity and care. If I've learned anything from my tiny forays into the W3C anti-fraud community group it's that there's a lot of complexity and expertise in this space of which I know almost nothing, so I'm open to new ideas. I'm thrilled to see anti-fraud experts actually collaborating openly and publicly for, perhaps, the first time in Internet history.
The full quote:<p>> 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.
I am very anti WEI but I can still have sympathy for anyone who is doxxed or has death threats sent to them. It's a bad proposal and it should be argued on its merits and resisted in its implementation. But even in HN threads I saw commentary on how it wasn't enough to just oppose this civilly, and that people needed to do more. I don't like the idea of people thinking that actions that threaten someone's physical safety is fair game, just because it's a terrible feature.
Link to the passage in question:<p><a href="https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_kGO22g/m/0doc7unxAQAJ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_...</a><p>It mentions threats of physical violence, which gives a different context than what the post's title suggests.
Please reconsider the headline. They aren't talking about regular critics. They are talking about doxxing and death threats. WEI is bad, but its proponents definitely don't deserve this. We aren't going to win the open web with violence and threats.<p>I also implore the regular critics to consider that WEI is a symptom of a systemic problem. If these individuals don't do it, someone else will. Attacking them personally diverts our attention from the underlying issue.
One of my closest friends is working on this proposal.<p>The personal safety fears are unfortunately real, which is absurd. However you feel about the internet, people shouldn't be physically threatened for having ideas about how to try to make it better.<p>On an unrelated but otherwise relevant note: he's also one of the most thoughtful and intelligent people I know, who has spent the majority of his career becoming a domain expert in internet abuse. He's also a true hacker and tinkerer who fully embodies the same free-as-in-freedom ethos that a lot of the dissenters do.<p>I haven't had a chance to talk to him about this proposal yet, but I'm really curious to hear his take. I'm sure it's thoughtful, nuanced, and well-intentioned. He'll be honest about what criticism is valid and what needs more work. He's the kind of person you want working on something this sensitive.<p>Those of you piling on about how this is Google being boldly evil or the death of the internet or whatever, kindly shut the fuck up. These are well-intentioned people presenting ideas to make the web a better place for everyone. (Abuse is unfortunately a very real thing that has real consequences; see also, global politics in the last decade.)<p>Your hyperbole is putting real people in danger, and that is not okay.