This is basically my expectation for how all privacy and legal freedom end on the internet. It's easier to pass a law than repeal it, and so this stuff will get done by throwing up slight variants of the same bills over and over until they get through Congress and the courts. Constitutionality can be ensured by getting lucky with wording and a friendly court. Passage comes from simply wearing down the opposition, who are drastically less well-funded and organized than the advocates.
I honestly have no idea what can be done about it. Internet freedoms work like a ratchet, and even winning 95% of the fights means that everything gets worse every year and never gets better.
This argument is stupid. The fundamental freedoms that the internet provide to the global community are too important to be taken away by old lawmakers with no understanding of the way Cyberspace works.
People in "tech" overall does not want to study other subjects than computer science, they do not want publish publications with other people, change the way the Internet works (in their own direction) nor organize with other people.
There is very little indicating that the support for free speech in "tech" is any more substantial than any industry's support for what serves them at the moment.
>People in "tech" overall does not want to study other subjects than computer science
People in a field are fans of that field and want to study it deeply? Surprises me for sure.
Because I am using the word vaguely to largely mean tech culture.
> People in a field are fans of that field and want to study it deeply? Surprises me for sure.
It is not a surprise to me. I am the one arguing that people don't actually think it is that important. Because usually when you think something is important you show an interest in it.
There are people interested in technology that also study ethics, law, psychology or even just things like information systems which are subjects that raises these questions. But those people are few and far between and tends to have a more complex view of the issue.
It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and more so to prove that something will not exist in the future.
The burden of proof is entirely on the party that claims existence - in this case, of harfmul effects of the Internet on society.
>The results are well deserved.
Hello victim blaming.
Love this quote:
> But a leading proponent of the legislation, Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Children and Families, said yesterday that the court "jumped off the bridge" with its "absolute" decision. Saying "the technology overwhelmed the court," Taylor predicted the Supreme Court would reject the ruling. "They haven't got a prayer of having this upheld on appeal," he said.
These twits are going to win eventually, just slowly.