Inevitably the internet will have two types of users:<p><pre><code> 1. The anti-bot bots that must stop you from proceeding, because they aren't entirely sure you aren't a bot
</code></pre>
and<p><pre><code> 2. The bots that can get past them, which we all must eventually deploy, if we want a chance to visit a web page</code></pre>
The internet is for porn [1] <i>Mostly SFW, headphones</i><p>I know I know, it's original purpose was to be a weapon. [2] It certainly became a weapon to divide the people.<p>[1] - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zAlVv73HI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zAlVv73HI</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Xxi0b9trY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Xxi0b9trY</a>
The internet is for whoever wants to send bits to each other and is willing to pay for transit to do it. The WWW might be for end users, though that seems less obvious by the day.
Right. The RFC is attempting to clarify the IETF's official position. The IETF is not the internet police, and can't make other actors obey.<p>We can make our own internet though - with blackhack and jookers.
what you write is excactly the problem the RFC tries to address.
And not only for http but for the whole internet protocol family.
I think fighting for a purpose-based ideology of the internet is actually doomed to fail because the form of the technology will dictate how its used and regulation and efforts will only slightly affect that.<p>E.g. If the internet is super-fast and has the capability to deliver video ads, it will be used for that. If everyone just had a connection with the speed of a 56K modem, that video-based ad model wouldn't work.<p>If we really want the internet to be a certain way, we have to change the underlying technology used, not the ideology behind it. Because if an technology has a capability, it will be used to do whatever is most successful in the capitalistic system, not what's best for 'end users'.<p>Regulation sometimes be effective, but...the model of regulation in a world of freely-evolving technology is a broken system most of the time.
This is why ideology is so important.<p>Is the end user viewed as an ISPs client? a consumer of tech companies?<p>The idealistic language is fine but isnt based on any scientific approach to society. Its neutral at best.<p>The internet is for end users, but how if its not "by end users"?<p>If most protocols and standard implementations depend on adoption by ISPs and tech companies what does it mean to be "for the end user"?<p>Is prison architecture "for the prisoners"?<p>So how do we solve the "by end users" dilemma?
Who's an end user.<p>Unless you own your hardware, you aren't the end user. When your phone, tv, camera, or even laptop on a non-free OS is on your network, you can get some semblance of control by controlling what network services it uses.<p>Things like DoH are part of the removal of my control as a home user and give it to Sony, or Apple, or TPLink<p>The most obvious thing is it becomes harder to block adverts.<p>Throw in internet-centralisation through HN darlings like cloudflare and you're screwed. You have no idea what anything is talking to, as it's the same destination IPs, so the choice is either block it completely, or allow it with no control.
I do share your actual concern, but I think the term 'end user' applies to any human sitting in front of a computer, trying to achieve something, independently of whether the effective sysadmin works against his interests or not.
Every technology has both pros and cons. Those who develop standards must weigh both sides rather than considering only one of them.<p>In countries where the internet is subject to censorship, as well as in regions with underdeveloped infrastructure, DNS queries are highly likely to be deliberately tampered with, poisoned, or hijacked. DoH is a very practical way to mitigate this problem, and I do not believe that the ability to block advertisements is more important than that.<p>Moreover, advanced users can still run their own DNS services for ad blocking, and, at least for the foreseeable future, DoH will not prevent them from continuing to use traditional DNS. You cannot criticize an important improvement in security merely because it makes ad blocking less convenient. Other people may face threat models that are a hundred times more serious than yours.
> Who's an end user.<p>I think in this context it'd be any netizen who does <i>not</i> hold a significant amount of power to influence other [unrelated to them] netizens?
[flagged]
This is an awkward read, the result of trying to convey an idea while couched in other language.<p>That idea being that AI is less important than humans.