4 ms·
There's some irony in posting this here, given this is a user-generated site and all, but I'd love to see all the safe-harbor provisions be seriously rethought.
by jowiar 8y ago
There's some irony in posting this here, given this is a user-generated site and all, but I'd love to see all the safe-harbor provisions be seriously rethought. It would wreck the tech industry, but save the internet by decentralizing it, and kill off cesspools where idiots wreck society while profiteering scum become billionaires amid the carnage.
- Nasrudith 8y agoThat would do massive harm to transparency due to making it harder to find anything. Not to mention the effective end of anonymous speech - either they host wrote or reuploaded it and either way they can be attacked for it. Which means vanishingly few would upload content from another. Really the tear it down and build something new mentality is faulty. You don't tear your house down and then build a new one before you die of exposure, you build the new one then abandon or tear down the old one.
- jowiar 8y agoWe had a (mostly) working house, then money happened to it, driven by legislation which let the VCs and their friends avoid the liability that prevented others from doing the same before. What we needed was tools to make it easier for people to publish to the shared internet. What we got was a centralized mess -- the bastard child of AOL and the advertising industry. The past 20 years of growth in the internet have been a mistake. Not a "small, needs a bit of tweaking" sort of mistake, but a "burn it all" mistake. Twitter is a garbage fire. Facebook is a garbage fire. The world would be better without them. Not a "slightly modified" version. Burned to the ground. The liability insurance required to hold data on a billion people should be unaffordable. Services at that scale should not exist.