9 ms·
I think this is a common failing for legal analysis of tech problems. Some years ago Lessig made the argument that radio bandwidth should be unregulated and bel
by tedunangst 5y ago
I think this is a common failing for legal analysis of tech problems. Some years ago Lessig made the argument that radio bandwidth should be unregulated and belong to all, instead of licensed to cellphone carriers. The technical basis for the argument was that's how Ethernet hubs work, and they work great. Of course, nobody uses a hub today.
- uniqueuid 5y agoCould you explain what the common failing is? To underestimate how technical changes affect real-life usage? I often see the opposite fallacy: That tech people assume technically optimal solutions to be socially and legally optimal, which they often are not. To transfer this to your example: Perhaps the social and economic landscape of society would be better off if the spectrum belonged to us all. Maybe we would have developed legal and social norms to handle the hub nature?
- tedunangst 5y agoAssuming some existing technical solution is optimal. Hubs existed for a time because they were cheap, not because they were good. Or assuming that some solution to an unsolved problem will be pulled out of the magical innovation hat. We'll just devise more efficient time sharing algorithms.
- uniqueuid 5y agoThanks, the first fallacy is great, I had not thought of this before. It's similar to how people will not deem change possible until it has always existed (i.e. when convinced, they overwrite the memory of their own past opinion).