It's not advertising that I'm skeptical of w/r/t Google. It's their amount of capital.
E.g., relating to the ASCII/binary discussion above:
A binary web would require advanced retooling and therefore investment. Smaller business entities are not in such a strong position to deal with such a large shift in their workflow. Therefore, switching to a binary protocol would disadvantage entities smaller than google.
Re:HTTP 2.0
by steveklabnik on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @12:43PM
(#6013586)
Sure, but bigger and smaller scale operations have different needs. The internet isn't supposed to be about what's best for the big guys, it's supposed to be about what's best for humanity.
I've mentioned specifics elsewhere in this thread, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012906
The "specifics" in the other threads are more ad hominem. You're saying "we should be wary of what Google does" without actually mentioning what's there in the spec to be wary about. You're saying "we shouldn't trust Google to pass specs unchecked", people are saying "but we aren't: we've read the spec, and it's good", and you're saying "yeah, but we shouldn't trust Google".
Re:HTTP 2.0
by steveklabnik on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @02:42PM
(#6014423)
> without actually mentioning what's there in the spec to be wary about.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013088
And, as I mention elsewhere, it's not just the spec, it's the general trend of Google dominating the web. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013468
The issue is that you're throwing around them being an advertising company as a negative without any discernible proof that it has negatively affected the outcome.
What, specifically (and please spare us the 'rhetorical flourishes') has been proposed that is unfairly biased towards advertising? Which parts should we be skeptical about?