[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."

[jauntywundrkind]

I didn't insult you, I insulted your arguing. You haven't provided anything worthwhile and haven't responded to my points, and have generally not made any "right" moves. That's a pretty key difference! My opinion is slipping for sure but I have kept that to myself!!

You just don't like my characterizations. And normally I do want to take a higher path! This brings me no joy to use this form. But you haven't given me any grounds to respond on, you never address my points or show that you are at all capable of hearing anything I am saying, so I have to argue and characterize something else instead. Your form is bad, would lose you even the most basic high school debate. I have to work around your distracting words to return us to some relevant point again and again and again.

That's the Brandolini's Law problem. That's the hacker spirit being attacked, that's possibility picked apart by close minded arguments and over-awe-ing projections of negativity and refusal. That's chance, denied.

That's why I keep engaging. We cannot deny all hope, let it be smothered like this. Especially not by such mal-engagement.

I'm surprised a lawyer like you would be so unable to tell such a basic difference between characterizing you vs characterizing your form. And would insist on acting so so sorry for themselves. But you've acted mostly in bad faith so far & haven't actually engaged in discussion, so it fits the pattern.

Agreed that this "discussion" ended, but it ended a long time ago imo. Bad faith engagement from you throughout, this was trash. I caution readers again that what you have to say distracts & takes away rather than helps them think about this all.