hAtom storage

Led two #w3cTPAC breakout sessions this week: * Environmental Concerns and #Sustainability (#s12y) of Web Technologies[1] * What is the value of and are the values of @W3C[2] and helped @seaotta with * What is the WebWeWant.fyi[3] Notes: [1] https://www.w3.org/2021/10/19-sustainability-minutes.html [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/10/22-what-values-minutes.html [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/10/19-webwewant-minutes.html Also participated in Accessibility & CSS (https://www.w3.org/2021/10/20-cssa11y-minutes.html). Preparing for, speaking, facilitating, and participating in virtual TPAC sessions a second year in a row was very draining. Despite that, I thought the sessions went fairly well overall. Most passionate and contentious was the session on sustainability, especially regarding what we should (or should not) do @W3C. There was a lot more alignment on the seriousness and urgency to act than I expected, and I was pleased to see that. There was a lot of support for figuring out how to establish Sustainability as an aspect of Horizontal Review of all technical specifications, as important as Accessibility (a11y), Internationaliation (i18n), Security, and Privacy. This would likely require an explicit Interest Group, with a charter, discussed and voted on by the W3C’s Advisory Committe (AC). Our shared sense of urgency made it clear we needed to start something sooner rather than later. A Community Group (CG) makes the most sense in the short term, chartered to work on both immediate horizontal review and the establishement of a more official Interest Group. I created a #sustainability channel on the W3C’s Community Slack instance to start informal discussions to get a Community Group started. Join us: https://twitter.com/w3c/status/1252972104456306688

Feature request: Bridgy backfeed reacjis on POSSEd comments

In Bridgy backfeed documentation it says "Bridgy detects and sends webmentions for … GitHub comments and emoji reactions on your issues and pull requests" which would seem to imply that Bridgy does not yet send webmentions for emoji reactions (reacjis) on POSSEd comments on GitHub issues and pull requests, e.g. the reacjis on this comment POSSEd by Bridgy.

According to GitHub API docs: List reactions for an issue comment it looks like this information is available in the GitHub API. It would be great if Bridgy could add support for backfeeding reacjis on POSSEd comments! Thanks for your consideration.

GitHub post https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy/issues/1076

tl;dr: prefer using phrase “manipulative design” instead of “harmful patterns” as a replacement for “dark patterns”. Also adding thanks to https://GitHub.com/LeaVerou, and agreed with the reasoning in https://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-05-28-CCIA-Comments-on-FTC-Dark-Patterns-Workshop.pdf (since this issue was filed!) particularly from an inclusiveness perspective, “[avoiding] connection of “dark-light dualism” to judgments about morality”. And as https://GitHub.com/harrybr is quoted: “during the Workshop by Professor Harry Brignull, while the term “dark pattern” (originated and popularized in part by Brignull) has been useful for marketing and raising awareness, it would be both “vague and sloppy” if used as a legal term or standard.” That being said, “harmful patterns” is vague and dilutes the intent of this issue. It’s also not strictly accurate from the perspective of a company implementing such patterns, from their (typically attention/growth/profit-maximizing) perspective, such patterns are helpful to them personally, their shareholders/investors if any, and not harmful. Such patterns are also too easy for such companies to hide behind a vague "intent" of supposedly "helping" people connect (quiet importing of contacts, suggesting joining radicalizing groups), or "helping" people get products they want/"need" (deceptive marketing, creating fear/insecurity in people’s minds then selling them a product to cope), etc. More precise (and preserving of intent, meaning, and literal effect) would be the phrase “manipulative design”, also used & recommended by that ccianet workshop (same link): “Rather than employ the terminology of “dark patterns,” these comments will refer to “manipulative design” practices or interfaces”.