[drewbug01]

> Hopefully, being familiar with the technical details will elevate the discussion so people who disagree can point out specific and concrete technical flaws

Asserting that an elevated discussion should center only on technical flaws and disagreements is a myopic way to look at a topic.

There’s more to the web than the technology used to power it. How a technology is used, and what it enables (good or bad) is an appropriate topic for this forum and constitutes elevated discussion.

[jasode]

>discussion should center only on technical flaws

You misintepreted what I wrote. My comment did not restrict it to only technical flaws. I already agree with your following statement:

>How a technology is used, and what it enables (good or bad) is an appropriate topic for this forum and constitutes elevated discussion.

Yes. Having us share some armchair anthropology (which I do myself[1]) on the social or secondary effects of technology is constructive dialogue and elevated discussion. My comment was never trying to cut that off.

That said, just rehashing "Google is just trying to own the web!" or slight variations of that meme may feel good for the poster to type out but it does not educate me on this topic. This is especially degrading to the discussion if the poster restating that common sentiment has a mistaken mental model of what Web Bundles actually do or can't do. Instead, share some quality facts so I as a reader can come to the conclusion on my own that this technology forces unblockable ads and lets Google take over my web experience.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19229225

[jhall1468]

I think you misunderstood the point you were replying to. The idea is that you can’t really have a discussion about what it enables or how it’s used unless you already understand the technical details. And that shows as a lot of the comments/blog posts about this topic are using underlying technical assumptions that are entirely incorrect.

[drewbug01]

The plain language of the comment doesn’t say that:

> so people who disagree can point out specific and concrete technical flaws

That’s the basis of my reply. I think you have a good point; but it isn’t what the parent said.

[jsnell]

The criticism the original post has of WebBundles is fundamentally technical. All of their privacy and anti-adblocker claims stem from the idea that the bundles have special URL randomization powers that the current one-resource-per-request model can't replicate.

If that technical basis is incorrect, the whole thing just collapses. There's nothing left. Not allowing disproving the technical basis of these kinds of posts would mean that we have to just accept conspiracy theories at face value. That does not seem like a healthy outcome.

(Or to put it another way: you wanted to discuss "how this technology will be used". But how can we possibly have that discussion without agreeing on "what the techology can do" first?)

[rektide]

I agree that how tech is used & what it enables is a good discussion.

I think folks interested in this topic should get a basic education.

I resend starting with intents & desires the project started with, by reading the ietf draft of the use cases,

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases-01