3 ms·

I'm honestly torn between two explanations here... 1) The people who wrote this had no idea what they were biting off because our legislators and courts seem t

by avs733 9y ago

I'm honestly torn between two explanations here... 1) The people who wrote this had no idea what they were biting off because our legislators and courts seem to continue to fail at understanding technology before they seek to regulate it. They thought this did some narrow thing and just ran with it while failing to understand the implications. 2) They are so focused on 'protecting the children' that they knew and didn't care. I'm honestly torn on which is worse. That being said, I am somewhat shocked that the major tech companies are interpreting this so broadly already.

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
A lot of the discussion in previous threads has shown that some of the major players EG craigslist know there are specific politicians who have taking them down as a feather for their cap that has been tried for, so they are conceding the lawfare fight before spending the attorney fees, because the law is crafted to make them lose.
anigbrowl 9y ago
2, because you can sell that at election time. Politicians and courts are not technological experts but they're not necessarily as clueless as technologists like to imagine. I have followed this particular issue for a good few years now and I can assure that people have been pointing out the negative side effects at length and in detail for a good longtime, but the political math simply doesn't favor the rational argument. You know how crap political advertising is, so imagine your representative or senator voted against this because it was a poorly crafted piece of legislation. Next election season it'll be 'Senator Doe voted to protect child pornographers and human traffickers! Who does Senator Doe REALLY work for??! WHAAARRRGARBLLLLL!' Expect more of this. Politics is increasingly not about good policy, it's about emotion and procedural tricks. No matter how well-intentioned, every politician worries about how their voting decisions can be (mis)represented at election time when voters are bombarded with bullshit claims that most have neither the will nor the time to properly evaluate.

by avs733 9y ago

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago

A lot of the discussion in previous threads has shown that some of the major players EG craigslist know there are specific politicians who have taking them down as a feather for their cap that has been tried for, so they are conceding the lawfare fight before spending the attorney fees, because the law is crafted to make them lose.

anigbrowl 9y ago

2, because you can sell that at election time. Politicians and courts are not technological experts but they're not necessarily as clueless as technologists like to imagine. I have followed this particular issue for a good few years now and I can assure that people have been pointing out the negative side effects at length and in detail for a good longtime, but the political math simply doesn't favor the rational argument. You know how crap political advertising is, so imagine your representative or senator voted against this because it was a poorly crafted piece of legislation. Next election season it'll be 'Senator Doe voted to protect child pornographers and human traffickers! Who does Senator Doe REALLY work for??! WHAAARRRGARBLLLLL!' Expect more of this. Politics is increasingly not about good policy, it's about emotion and procedural tricks. No matter how well-intentioned, every politician worries about how their voting decisions can be (mis)represented at election time when voters are bombarded with bullshit claims that most have neither the will nor the time to properly evaluate.