I don’t think humans can read URLs well enough to know that two URLs are from their bank. To do so requires internalising the public suffix list which has over 8800 entries. I don’t think humans do this.
June 16th, 2020
Painting all disagreement as people being “enraged” isn’t helpful.
And there’s a big difference between “some humans can’t read some URLs” and “humans can’t read URLs”.
I’m a human and I can confirm I don’t do this
(and I didn’t paint all disagreement as being enraged. If we’re throwing ‘schoolyard’ accusations around, why are you trying to put words in my mouth?)
Right. Those are some URLs. Some URLs aren’t easy to understand (sometimes by design, deceptively). We’re in agreement. But I would never say “humans can’t read URLs” because they can’t read some URLs. adactio.com/notes/17021
Right, but if I’m asking “can users use URLs to make safety decisions?”, and your answer is “yes! Unless the URL is trying to trick them”, then the actual answer is “no”
Jake, like I said, I really like your proposal. But the way you’re framing it here on Twitter (as opposed to in your video) is reductive and polarising. (Here we are arguing when we agree about the bit that matters—the proposal.) adactio.com/notes/17022
URLs have been around for well over a quarter of a century. That there is still ignorance and confusion about them speaks volumes as to the lack of education by evangelists of the general public about this fundamental interweb net thingy.