Regardless of whether the terminology is technically correct, it's easily understood what the meaning is. Modifying links and modifying typed URLs are equally bad, so your claim that it is sensationalist doesn't make sense. Your post is pure pedantry that does not make any substantive contribution.
If he operates within a technical space (as he clearly does) surely correctness isn't too much to ask.
I assumed from the title that Brave was adding affiliate codes to links on the page. That is not the case and now the author feels that he is a victim because Eich pointed this out.
The author also added an inflammatory HN comment from this thread to his blog post. This doesn't make any substantive contribution and is sensational.
>Modifying links and modifying typed URLs are equally bad
Sorry, but you're plainly wrong.
"Modifying links" implies another victim in the scheme: The party who authored the link in the first place. It implies that a third party is being deprived of their affiliate revenue because the link they wrote was "hijacked".
That's not what happened. No one is having anything stolen. If that distinction is not important to you.... then I don't know what to say.
Words matter. Never more so than when making serious accusations.
They are equally bad because in both cases the user is taken to a place that they did not intend to go. They are not bad because something is getting "stolen", they are bad because the user is no longer in control. That is a significantly more concerning aspect than someone not receiving affiliate revenue, which to be completely honest, I couldn't care less about.
So a third party also being wronged does not change anything because... you don't like the third party? Classy.
Do you have an actual argument or is that it?
Edit: This has got to be the first time I've seen an HN'er defend someone adding a clickbait title to their submission. A submission that points to their own marketing website. The guy is selling a book. Don't be so naive.
The accusation stands on its own without sensationalizing it.
I simply don't believe that mistakenly saying "links" instead of "URLs" is sensationalist. The author is not engaging in clickbait by substituting that word. A layman understanding of the web will not make a distinction between a URL and a link. The issue is clearly the fact that the browser deceives the user, whether it is changing a link in a page or changing the URL typed in the address bar, these are both equally deceptive from the user's point of view.
Hell, I have a reasonably good knowledge of the terminology and I will regularly ask people to "send me links" or "send me URLs" interchangeably. It's just needlessly pedantic.
He's a technical writer (by profession) directing traffic to his blog dedicated to marketing his technical book. Don't be naive, he knows exactly what he's doing.
Furthermore, I responded directly to the OP when he pondered aloud why he would be accused of lying. I explained. Then you jumped on me for being pedantic and posting non-substantive comments? Okay, seriously?
Speaking of which, why did the OP post the comment to HN about Eich calling him a liar, if not to stir up controversy (and traffic)? That's highly unusual. Did you ever consider that Brave is not the only one selling something?
>The issue is clearly the fact that the browser deceives the user, whether it is changing a link in a page or changing the URL typed in the address bar, these are both equally deceptive from the user's point of view
That's simply not true. They are not equally deceptive.... at all. A web browser surreptitiously re-writing third party web-content is next level evil. The implications would be absolutely astronomical.
