Focus more on people, not abstractions #244
Conversation
Relates to issue w3c#211. Addresses concerns with 'society' expressed in: * w3c#211 (comment) * w3c#211 (comment) Addresses concerns with over-abstraction of 'those who use it' expressed in: * w3c#211 (comment)
| @@ -86,16 +86,16 @@ Markup Shorthands: markdown yes | |||
| and its impact will continue to grow in the future, | |||
| as it expands reach, knowledge, education, and services even more broadly. | |||
| We believe the World Wide Web should be | |||
| inclusive and respectful of those who use it: | |||
| inclusive and respectful of everyone: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a problem with "everyone". As phrased, this raises the paradox of being tolerant of the intolerant.
| inclusive and respectful of everyone: | |
| inclusive and respectful of all participants: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both "everyone" and "all participants" feel as though they miss the mark of the intention in this section. Considering the comments made in #211 and the substance of the EWP we refer to right before this section, I wonder if this is a good place to allude to both our commitment to humanity and to life on this planet (through sustainability).
Something like "We believe the World Wide Web should be respectful and inclusive of life on earth:"
Alternately, something like "...those who interact with it:" (to avoid the "use" issue for those who don't actively engage).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to "We believe the World Wide Web should be respectful and inclusive of life on earth:"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"life on earth" is overreaching by far. We do not, in fact, include amoebas, or deep-sea vent worms. This overreaching makes the phrase nearly comical. I dislike this, for the same reasons I dislike everyone, but the only remaining suggestion I have is "all".
| inclusive and respectful of everyone: | |
| inclusive and respectful of all: |
| a Web that supports facts over falsehoods, | ||
| people over profits, | ||
| humanity over hate. | ||
|
|
||
| # W3C's Vision for the World Wide Web # {#vision-web} | ||
|
|
||
| * The Web is for <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#allpeople">all humanity</a>. | ||
| * The Web is designed for the <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#noharm">good of society</a>. | ||
| * The Web must be <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#privacy">safe for those who use it</a>. | ||
| * The Web is designed for the <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#noharm">good of the people who use it</a>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't personally have a problem with this, but it does +1 the instances of the root "use".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On this line, I debated between "good of the people who use it" and just "good of people". I'm okay with either one, really, and open to other alternatives that avoid the problems with "good of society".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My issue with this vs "society" is that there's an implication of us not caring about people who don't use the web. The challenge with this being that with how technology works today, while someone may not be an active user of the web, the web and its associated technologies still have an impact on their lives and I believe we hold a responsibility to protect them as well. I also think that considering EWP's extensive use of "society" there's a unification of language that is beneficial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Society" has political connotations. "Humanity", "all", "world" … would be preferable (link to comparison of society synonyms). It's just that "society" is used a tool to squash non-status quo and forget about those who are not using the web, as @wareid points out. Sadly, society generally references organized society versus indigenous or non-colonial. Is Nick Doty available for review?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, the Ethical Web principles - from where this term came, and is directly referenced - specifically mentions vulnerable people, so I have to disagree that this could be used as a non-status-quo squashing phrase. I will also again point out that the change to "society" was done based on suggestion by Sarven, approved by a whole bunch of people.
At this point, my backup suggestion is to directly use the text from the EWP : "The Web does not cause harm to society".
|
Obviated by #250 |
Relates to issue #211.
Addresses concerns with 'society' expressed in:
Addresses concerns with over-abstraction of 'those who use it' expressed in: