[tylerhou]

This link is posted in bad faith -- in the doc's current state (https://archive.is/wJRDG#privacy), directly linking to the (empty) privacy section implies that the authors did not consider privacy at all. But clearly that's not true, given that the authors wrote ~500 words in their high level overview about how they would try to mitigate fingerprinting and cross site tracking: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/....

It's obvious that this doc is just a very early working draft -- the rest of the spec is filled with TODOs as well, including TODOs for basic definitions. Yes, you might disagree with the proposal, but it's better to argue against the proposal constructively instead of bad faith misrepresentations.

[mg]

As I understand it, this would mean I cannot customize my reading experience anymore. As I could not run my own code on websites. For example, this is how I read HN:

https://twitter.com/marekgibney/status/1551483561621979136

I can't imagine reading HN and having to manually figure out which posts I have not yet seen.

I do the same for many other aspects of my browsing experience. Change the font size, colors, remove static elements. I control it all via bookmarklets. Having all that taken away would be pretty terrible.

[tylerhou]

That's not what the proposal would do -- you could still run your own JavaScript on websites. In fact, this is explicitly stated as a non-goal: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

  > Non-goals:
  >
  > - Enforce or interfere with browser functionality, 
  >   including plugins and extensions.

[dang]

Related ongoing thread:

Web Environment Integrity API Proposal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817305 - July 2023 (282 comments)