HN: URLs are perfect and hiding “www.” breaks HTTPS!! Meanwhile, in the real world...https://twitter.com/x0rz/status/1038050986345066496 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Hiding "www." won't make this go away at least for a generation, until nobody remembers it ever having existed. Making the browser flag 2nd-level (or any) domains beginning with "www-" with big red PHISHING WARNING would fix it overnight.
I’m not saying hiding “www.” solves that phishing case, just that claiming nobody has issues with URLs and so we don’t need to improve how we show them is laughable. Also, warning fatigue is a thing, SafeBrowsing is a thing, nothing is fixed overnight and fixed rules get bypassed
OK. I still think "let's hide more information" is an awful idea that's going to break things and lead to *more* phishing, if not less, on top of more centralization of authority.
Making the browser watch out for the user and act in their interests (rather than publisher's interests) seems like a much better approach. But mindless addition of features to make publishers happy has made that hard...
IMHO we are facing a cultural issue here. It's pretty evident even in our language. We need to widen the perspective looking beyound our specific application: we should think about people as people not just as "users". A good UI serves people. And as of today... 1/
I use the word "user" intentionally to reflect which person's interests it needs to serve, because I believe at the direct user-device interface, an individualist perspective is needed. You can't trust & feel comfortable using a device serving someone else's interests over yours.
In the very instant you reduce the person to a user of your application, you are not serving her interest anymore, but your own.
Completely disagree. Maybe there's a language barrier here. Demanding that software work for the user/in their interests, as opposed to "for people" (who might not care about this specific person's interests, e.g. DRM working "for artists") is not "reducing them".
Definitely a language barrier. Sorry, my fault. The software should serve each person that uses it, but not reduce such person to "the agent that uses the software". And people (as plural of person) need to be educated about software through software.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.