4 ms·
That's a 71 page document. If you understand the "more thoughtful and nuanced" argument from the ESA, would you mind writing it up? I feel like one of the servi
by pyrocat 12y ago
That's a 71 page document. If you understand the "more thoughtful and nuanced" argument from the ESA, would you mind writing it up? I feel like one of the services the EFF provides is reading through these documents, summarizing their arguments, and providing a "is this shitty or not" perspective to a wider audience.
- anigbrowl 12y agoI would mind, because that would be hours and hours of unpaid work which would probably just lead to me getting labelled as a shill for the ESA by many HN readers. Sorry. The executive summary (which begins on the first page) is only 4 pages long, which I think is a manageable read.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 12y agoI'm 1/3rd through ESA's response and it is clearly far more nuanced than EFF is pretending it is in this blog post. As a threshold matter (to adopt the argot) it should be enough for you to know that EFF is misrepresenting ESA. It's especially disappointing given that even the most charitable summary of ESA's position would still leave most of the Internet on EFF's side. (I put the rest of my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345206 --- read it before HN flags it off the site; it's what you asked for.)
- tedunangst 12y ago> I feel like one of the services the EFF provides is reading through these documents, summarizing their arguments, Yes. And they do a poor job of it.