3 ms·

It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics arguments. Sadly they aren't trying to appeal to the public or lawmakers, they are trying to appeal t

by kyrra 6y ago

It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics arguments. Sadly they aren't trying to appeal to the public or lawmakers, they are trying to appeal to the judge, so it seems like wasted effort.

masklinn 6y ago
> It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics arguments. Is it though? Seems the opposite to me: reactive laws (aka sensational news items -> law) are generally ill considered and badly conceived. Trying to carefully consider how items and technologies can be used, and whether those uses are things which should be forbidden, seems like it'd generally lead to much better law-making, not attached to any sort of emotional "fog". This process won't catch every misuse, but any misuse it catches is one which'd almost certainly have been seen. It's the same idea as trying to consider how an API could be (mis)used before deploying it, and deciding whether you want to allow that or specifically check against it.
- anyonecancode 6y ago
  I like that analogy. When designing an API I try to avoid over-engineering for use cases that might exist in the future, but at the same time I do try to make it hard to end up with invalid states. You don't need to wait around for a user to send invalid data before designing to prevent that. So I guess the question is whether, in this analogy, net neutrality is about use cases or about valid states? Personally, I see it as more of the latter.
- TrueDuality 6y ago
  I'd be much more willing to accept your argument if this was reactive. There is historical precedent of ISPs doing the behavior these laws are trying to protect against on large scales. They got caught, and because of the title classification they were forced to stop. ISPs continue to have financial incentives to do these actively malicious behaviors to their customers so some level of protection needs to be in place.
- kyrra 6y ago
  Too many laws also hamper innovation. Trying to prevent something from happening that hasn't proven to be an issue yet can get in the way of things that are actually good but potentially get caught on a law that gets used against people in unintended ways. Reactive law can work just as well too, it just needs to not be rushed. For example, Section 230 is a reactive law that allowed for the creation of the internet we have today. I think your argument could be better made by saying that laws that are created quickly without lots of analysis and debate are bad. Interested parties on any given law need to be able to weigh in to provide insight about how it may impact them, and then it's up to lawmakers to find a good balance. The public comment process that executive agencies have for rule changes could be nicely applied to our law making process as well.

by kyrra 6y ago

masklinn 6y ago

> It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics arguments. Is it though? Seems the opposite to me: reactive laws (aka sensational news items -> law) are generally ill considered and badly conceived. Trying to carefully consider how items and technologies can be used, and whether those uses are things which should be forbidden, seems like it'd generally lead to much better law-making, not attached to any sort of emotional "fog". This process won't catch every misuse, but any misuse it catches is one which'd almost certainly have been seen. It's the same idea as trying to consider how an API could be (mis)used before deploying it, and deciding whether you want to allow that or specifically check against it.

anyonecancode 6y ago
I like that analogy. When designing an API I try to avoid over-engineering for use cases that might exist in the future, but at the same time I do try to make it hard to end up with invalid states. You don't need to wait around for a user to send invalid data before designing to prevent that. So I guess the question is whether, in this analogy, net neutrality is about use cases or about valid states? Personally, I see it as more of the latter.
TrueDuality 6y ago
I'd be much more willing to accept your argument if this was reactive. There is historical precedent of ISPs doing the behavior these laws are trying to protect against on large scales. They got caught, and because of the title classification they were forced to stop. ISPs continue to have financial incentives to do these actively malicious behaviors to their customers so some level of protection needs to be in place.
kyrra 6y ago
Too many laws also hamper innovation. Trying to prevent something from happening that hasn't proven to be an issue yet can get in the way of things that are actually good but potentially get caught on a law that gets used against people in unintended ways. Reactive law can work just as well too, it just needs to not be rushed. For example, Section 230 is a reactive law that allowed for the creation of the internet we have today. I think your argument could be better made by saying that laws that are created quickly without lots of analysis and debate are bad. Interested parties on any given law need to be able to weigh in to provide insight about how it may impact them, and then it's up to lawmakers to find a good balance. The public comment process that executive agencies have for rule changes could be nicely applied to our law making process as well.