|
Top-level
 @dalias Indeed and yet I feel I must stress again that I wasn’t speaking to @cwebber (the person, who isn’t even part of a corporate W3C member as far as I know) but to @w3c (a corporate entity that does the bidding of surveillance capitalists like Google). I could have worded it better so Christine didn’t have cause to think it was about her (and I’ll definitely make sure I do in the future if there is room for ambiguity). 5 comments
 @aral It’s good to be critical of W3C or any similar institution (there’s a lot to be said here), but I think it was the wrong thread to do that; to me, it looked like you were jumping at the very people who designed and standardized what lets us communicate right now. Not great. @civodul Yeah, that’s my bad. I should have deleted the mentions from the reply. Edited it afterwards to do so. My comment was aimed squarely at the corporate entity that is the W3C. @civodul (The people who designed/standardised the protocol have every right to pat themselves on the back. The W3C, not so much. And I definitely do not want to see the W3C capturing the narrative around alternatives to the current corporate system when they ARE the current corporate system we’re trying to build alternatives for.) |
Gregory's Server
@dalias (Sadly, it is also in the modus operandi of entities like the W3C, Google, etc., to use invited experts for legitimacy and to shield themselves from criticism. “Oh, you‘re criticising us, well you must be criticising this beloved person, then.” No, dear corporation, I‘m criticising the corporate entity and an increasing number of us happen to see through your public relations attempts at leeching legitimacy off of individuals.)
@cwebber @w3c