3 ms·

Because laws are not rigid computer programs that solve logic riddles. They are broad strokes designed for the long term, to be interpreted by Judges. ANY cont

by tacos 11y ago

Because laws are not rigid computer programs that solve logic riddles. They are broad strokes designed for the long term, to be interpreted by Judges. ANY contract can be read at least three ways. One of the comments here discusses advocacy vs scaremongering and computer science people seem particularly prone to having their buttons pushed by sloppy legalese. I wish the real world were clearer, but it just isn't. There's no excuse for poorly-thought out legislation -- but that's why we elect representatives. You can't rally the minions every time there's sloppy bricklaying. It does not scale. And as a citizen, you need to know when to spend your limited supply of outrage.

pessimizer 11y ago
Then the industry are wasting an enormous amount of time and money making sure that the laws are written exactly this way. What idiots, right? Judges will ultimately make sure that the laws are interpreted in a way to favor net neutrality if we would just keep quiet about it.
- Laaw 11y ago
  What grandparent post is failing to understand is that we're part of the process. Our outrage was anticipated, and the system expects us to cry out when a bad law gets proposed.
  - tacos 11y ago
    Grandparent (me) feels that if the EFF is trying to fight massive corporations and lobbyists with blog posts -- and the end result is three posts an hour on HN -- then perhaps the EFF needs to reflect upon its strategy. Also killing every bill that you don't like isn't a long-term strategy. They come back. They come back hidden. They come back stronger. They come back sleazier. Killing bills that are not perfect (obstructionism) merely pumps up the pressure cooker. This is not the path to reasonable legislation. Sometimes the path forward is to enact a bad bill then sue to set case law. I don't see a lot of these nuances discussed during the quarterly "this kills the internet" fire drills. Perhaps you still find them exciting? I do not.
    - Laaw 11y ago
      Other than your idea about the path forward, I completely agree. I too am exhausted by the EFF's constant "the sky is falling" attitude. Their strategy probably works for funding reasons, but I wish a more moderate voice would pick up the net neutrality cause, so I'd finally have a place to send my money.
wpietri 11y ago
The productivity of Congress has been in decline for years, so "it does not scale" hardly seems to matter. This seems like a very reasonable amount of legislation for citizens to opine upon when necessary: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
- tacos 11y ago
  Building a defense to Liberty based on outrage is what does not scale. Though I'm not sure you can get citizens to read 150,000+ pages of legalese a year. Hell, we can't even get our Representatives to do that.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Our country was founded on the defense of liberty via outrage, and we've never really stopped, so it seems to scale well enough to me. And the "get citizens to read 150,000+ pages" thing is a straw man: nobody is suggesting that.

by tacos 11y ago

pessimizer 11y ago

Then the industry are wasting an enormous amount of time and money making sure that the laws are written exactly this way. What idiots, right? Judges will ultimately make sure that the laws are interpreted in a way to favor net neutrality if we would just keep quiet about it.

Laaw 11y ago
What grandparent post is failing to understand is that we're part of the process. Our outrage was anticipated, and the system expects us to cry out when a bad law gets proposed.
- tacos 11y ago
  Grandparent (me) feels that if the EFF is trying to fight massive corporations and lobbyists with blog posts -- and the end result is three posts an hour on HN -- then perhaps the EFF needs to reflect upon its strategy. Also killing every bill that you don't like isn't a long-term strategy. They come back. They come back hidden. They come back stronger. They come back sleazier. Killing bills that are not perfect (obstructionism) merely pumps up the pressure cooker. This is not the path to reasonable legislation. Sometimes the path forward is to enact a bad bill then sue to set case law. I don't see a lot of these nuances discussed during the quarterly "this kills the internet" fire drills. Perhaps you still find them exciting? I do not.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    Other than your idea about the path forward, I completely agree. I too am exhausted by the EFF's constant "the sky is falling" attitude. Their strategy probably works for funding reasons, but I wish a more moderate voice would pick up the net neutrality cause, so I'd finally have a place to send my money.

wpietri 11y ago

The productivity of Congress has been in decline for years, so "it does not scale" hardly seems to matter. This seems like a very reasonable amount of legislation for citizens to opine upon when necessary: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

tacos 11y ago
Building a defense to Liberty based on outrage is what does not scale. Though I'm not sure you can get citizens to read 150,000+ pages of legalese a year. Hell, we can't even get our Representatives to do that.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Our country was founded on the defense of liberty via outrage, and we've never really stopped, so it seems to scale well enough to me. And the "get citizens to read 150,000+ pages" thing is a straw man: nobody is suggesting that.