phil ringnalda

I understand your position. And I guess I’d argue differently, if the generalized position out there wouldn’t be one of ”can do no harm”. There’s one righteous argument, and that’s the ”let me do with my browser what I want”. It’s a working one, and in the context of an educated user-base, it’s even a very powerful one.

Yet, aside from it, there’s the ”benevolence” argument, and that one I don’t buy. Not for a second. If I were to condemn any approach of changing the presentation and/or behavior of a site on the client end, I couldn’t argue in favor of running proxies that strip Google Adwords or other ads, that allow visually impaired users to browse, etc. Hey, I’ve most likely written favelets/booklets that screw with pages in a much more insensible manner. That’s not the issue, at least not in my book.

The problem arises, for me, when the argument (and that one isn’t yours, at least I don’t understand you to argue this) shifts from ”I can do what I want with my browser” to ”Google knows best”. The ”Butler” argument is such a slippery slope. It insinuates, by visual proxy, a complete benevolence on the side of Google. And that one I don’t buy. What do I buy? I buy into the right of every client out there to render as its master commands. I even agree with the behavioral changes, based on the fact that there’s a conscious act involved to trigger them.

Where we disgree, it seems, is on the question wether Google is doing the ”Right Thing” or just something that’s OK. I believe the implementation is flawed, the arguments are the same I keep hearing from Spammers, and the question is, if I should be thrilled about it. I am not. If you’re checking my site, I am not disallowing it, I am not even attempting to circument it. But that doesn’t mean I am not seeing similarities to trends I was, and am, opposed to.