Address issues in #211 #250
Conversation
This reverts commit 61d3f3c.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is in better alignment with EWP wording, and I can live with the change from "society" to "humanity" if it finishes resolving #211 to the satisfaction or at least absence of remaining objections of the commenters on that issue.
|
I'd appreciate clarification or any pointers on why "The Web is designed for the good of humanity" is considered more aligned with EWP than "The Web is designed for the good of society", especially given that the referenced EWP section is titled "The web does not cause harm to society". Although I originally proposed "society" I mentioned the intention of a shared "humanity" in this comment. So, "humanity" works for me as well. Thanks! |
|
@csarven to be direct: it isn't, and personally, I prefer your word of "society". There is a very long thread in #211, though, with a number of people (after also expressing that they liked your wording proposal) disagreeing specifically with the word "society", so in order to placate those voices, I was trying to choose a different word. I was trying to minimize objection to whatever word went there, while still trying to get across the "we're all in this together" vibe. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-1 to these changes.
- The first is a neutral change. I think the original read better, but this one is not harmful.
- The second one has all the problems of "the good of the collective" that the previous wording had.
- The last change dilutes the point, which was a strong statement about safety of the individual using the Web, and now is limited to security (of what?) and "respecting privacy" (which is vague).
|
I see @fantasai's points, even though I was ok w/ the changes. @fantasai and @csarven any chance you two could take a crack at updating the wording, while also taking into account @cwilso's desires. I know this is really difficult to get right, but what concrete changes would both of you suggest that might also address @cwilso and @tantek's concerns? It seems like at least @fantasai @frivoal @msporny and possibly @csarven would agree to @frivoal's proposal here: |
2. Changes "good of all humanity" to "good of all people" to avoid prioritizing the "good" of a collective over its individuals, which has inspired so much evil in the past and present. See w3c#211 (comment) 3. Returns "secure and respect people's privacy" to a stronger concept of safety for the users. See w3c#250 (review) 1. Returns "for all people" to "for all humanity" (revert from PR#250), since cwilso agrees the original phrasing was more eloquent, and it is no longer awkward due to repetition in w3c#2.
2. Changes "good of all humanity" to "good of all people" to avoid prioritizing the "good" of a collective over its individuals, which has inspired so much evil in the past and present. See w3c#211 (comment) 3. Returns "secure and respect people's privacy" to a stronger concept of safety for the users. See w3c#250 (review) 1. Returns "for all people" to "for all humanity" (revert from PR#250), since cwilso agrees the original phrasing was more eloquent, and it is no longer awkward due to repetition in w3c#2.
Part 1. This aligns wording with the EWP, avoiding the term "society".