[otterley]

If your argument has merit, we will see it win in the marketplace. If it doesn’t, then it will not. Simple as that. And I’m definitely not the only one who is looking for an explanation of why an agent-browser interface is the superior approach vis-a-vis the alternatives.

I’m not entirely sure what your angle is, but your tirade makes it sound like you’re emotionally invested in this (and potentially financially invested) and you’re frightened. A confident person doesn’t need all these histrionics.

[jauntywundrkind]

I just really dislike the uselessness of people who naysay & dont engage! This poor world suffers SO MUCH from Brandolini's Law, from bad information being so easy to create. My heart is torn by bad engagement, by misdirection, away from the good and the interesting and the possible, and there's such an asymmetry that the truth and possibility face, so many ways for potential to be sapped and drained.

Hackers deserve better than such. There is a moral spiritual calling they ought feel to want to explore & think.

I do think WebMCP faces extremely long odds against success. It's incredibly unlikely to win. You started this by talking about companies wanting to do the wrong thing, by discussing how they hate giving users freedom to use the web as they want: WebMCP runs up against that problem. It only wins if a critical mass of users adopt it & can advocate for it, find it better enough & find enough voice to get it adopted anyways. That seems super unlikely. Your practical objection is most real, and part of the brutal badness of this reality. The odds of success only get far worse from there: I don't think a lot of users will have on-ramps to use this technology well. Very few users understand tool calling, very few will have interesting extensions or systems to make use of WebMCP. Especially with mobile browsers often not supporting extensions.

Once again I think you are just so off the mark on the other thing though: 'Let the market see' is wildly out of the spirit of a hackerly discussion. We ought assess for ourselves, be using this space to try to figure out what is good, and what we want to win, and why, on what merits. We ought be calibrating and pushing, trying to develop our thoughts. Humankind the toolmaker is meant to explore, to understand; that's why I dislike naysaying & non-engagement so much. It's against my spiritual values, against in my view the best parts of our nature.

Possibility and good is delicate. Seeing unengaged unthoughtful disregard of it does get to my heart.

[arjunchint]

There have been thousands-millions of proposals since the dawn of the internet that got nowhere.

To exist is to recognize the material constraints of reality; there are things humans won't ever discover. Ergo we have to prioritize what is useful.

This proposal is not useful. It goes against the fundamental interest of website owners to differentiate and build up a moat around direct user relationship and data. WebMCP is frankly just a land grab attempt by Google to get more free stuff from publishers.

[jauntywundrkind]

Said as if it's all just happening around us, some hand of fate moving things to where they will be. I am spiritually opposed to this point of view, and find it dead and against the hacker spirit. We are participants in the marketplace of ideas. Our words here should be used to inform and steer ourselves & each other.

If you want to not pay attention, go right ahead! But kindly don't waste everyone's time by commenting with your irregard & wasting all of our time.

This proposal is very useful. It goes for the users to help them disentangle themselves from the heinous moats of control that software fiefs try to erect around themselves. Google is helping companies that want to better relate to their users, to give those users much amplified agency to access the software and systems on their own terms.

That's how software should win! That should be a colossal crushing victory over the control & manipulation that the human spirit detests and loaths.

That is a huge win. Doomsaying is evil and bad, and embarrassing to hacker-kind. Breath life into better futures. At least consider with curiosity and interest the possibilities of better: so often the future is found by those who do look to the past, and see what was passed over. Be the engaged. Be the interested. Seek value & interest.

[otterley]

> But kindly don't waste everyone's time by commenting with your irregard & wasting all of our time.

Don't tell people not to disagree with you. The "marketplace of ideas" you celebrate here is full of disagreement.

If you disagree with people, just make the best substantive argument you can. Don't characterize your fellow participants. Criticize the idea, not the person. And expect to lose your fair share of arguments.

[jauntywundrkind]

I LOVE DISAGREEMENT.

But I expect some actual engagement, & willingness to explore the topic. I maintain that you have avoided engagement, and blanketly worked to shut down thought and discussion, rather than explore ideas.

> If you disagree with people, just make the best substantive argument you can.

I've done just that, raising and supporting my points and responding to your arguments. But you ignore the previous discussion and make new posts that don't seem to ever build off anything that's happened so far or make any acknowledgement of past discussion: it's always some new point, or trying to score some technical win over me, chastizing me for form, as you do as here. None of it builds.

As I see it, you've been wasting everyone's time, and since you don't show any signs of considering how this might be different, and since you won't engage in points raised. I regrettably think it's better to share my opinion that we all would be better off giving you no attention at all, if you keep posting without participating as you have done.

> Don't characterize your fellow participants. Criticize the idea, not the person.

You deserve criticism for the way you have misdirected away from exploration or consideration, in a non-engaged fashion. It has been a mis-service to the topic, and a mis-service to everyone else's time.

This is getting less and less specific & less to the point from you. You seem to have tons of time to write these letters, but no time to engage in the topic. I don't know what it is you are after, but being policed by you like this is just further distracting from anything of relevance. Don't do this. It's continuing to be a negative drain.

I think it's incredible that we have this collaborative system where people and LLMs can work together. You are free to disagree, but so far, you haven't, you haven't shown any recongition at all that you understand how this might be different, and it seems like you've just been monologuing your naysaying over-top the points I have raised. Without showing signs that you've read or heard anything said.

[otterley]

> > Don't characterize your fellow participants. Criticize the idea, not the person.

> You deserve criticism for the way you have misdirected away from exploration or consideration, in a non-engaged fashion. It has been a mis-service to the topic, and a mis-service to everyone else's time.

Attempting to "double down" was the wrong move.

I think we've reached the end of this "discussion."