> Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.
Agree with most of your comment, but I can't see where this is coming from. I would be shocked if any "standard" coming from Twitter would be anything but broken.
Again, you're saying W3C doesn't work in the interests of the user, but ignoring that Twitter works actively against the interest of the user.
W3C isn't ideal, but the alternative being discussed is devoid of any merit whatsoever.
The alternative being discussed is Twitter appointing a different neutral party: if they're bending to the W3C, they're already appointing a "neutral party" to do the work for them, the only difference is changing who they trust from another giant organization that's very clearly apathetic about user interests to one that does: the SSBC would be perfect, for example.
John Sullivan had a great tweet about this:
https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839
Fundamentally, the W3C does not work in the interest of the user, and shouldn't be trusted.
Get some of the Scuttlebutt guys or the Diaspora guys to contribute! Don't get the W3C, no one who's part of the W3C should have a say in anything.
Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.