3 ms·
I have a enormous amount of respect for the EFF and I am very concerned about SOPA, however I am a little troubled by the tone of the article: "Many of the
by dfc 15y ago
I have a enormous amount of respect for the EFF and I am very concerned about SOPA, however I am a little troubled by the tone of the article:
"Many of the online watchers took to Twitter
to voice their concerns about being shut out
of the hearing by the poor quality webcast.
But the Internet community was shut out
of the hearing in a more fundamental way"
I think that the lack of representation in the hearing is appalling. I can certainly imagine that the lack of representation is attributable to malice. But the poor video streaming? I really doubt that the video quality is part of a two pronged plan to shut out the opposition. Given the subject matter I bet that this video stream has attracted more attention than any in the past.
- hartror 15y agoI agree, EFF should have applied Hanlon's razor[1], but it wouldn't have made for as good link bait. :/ [1] "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
- burgerbrain 15y agoHow about Grey's Law^? It doesn't really matter why it's wrong, it matters that it's wrong. ^ "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
- tikhonj 15y agoI thought the article was pretty clear in attributing the poor streaming to extreme incompetence. The poor quality is concerning not because it's part of a "two-pronged plan" but because it's indicative of Congress's poor grasp of internet technology which is particularly jarring in this context. Additionally, just because the poor quality wasn't necessarily malicious does not exonerate the committee entirely; the tone of the article is still warranted because the end result is the same regardless of intent and because expecting a watchable stream in this day and age is more than reasonable.