Re: Sloppy writing, many missing words -- yet still TOO LONG!
These criticisms are mostly valid. I ended up juggling multiple versions in which I fixed a number of errors, including the one you complain about, but I see after reviewing the draft I submitted that some of my corrections didn't make it into the final version I had my hands on. So mea culpa.
Oh, and, yes, the criticism was so expected that I mentioned it in the first paragraph. It seemed like an obvious, predictable criticism, and maybe one I deserved.
I wouldn't dispute your ability to write better than I do. I haven't read your work. All I know is that I tried to get a handle on what I was feeling when I learned my friend died. I don't know whether anyone is gifted dealing with that, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. If you have something to share about Barlow, please send me the link.
'For 100 years (and currently),print press are responsible for their users toxic bile, but the American public has to suffer for 20 years plus because it's the just internet?'
Is the argument here that the internet is precisely like the "print press"? That's a difficult equation to support without analysis. Section 230 is grounded in the ways in which the internet, even in 1996, was not just the "print press" transmitted in bits, but also functions analogously to (a) telephones and telegraphs, (b) common carriers like postal services and package services, and (c) bookstores and libraries. These other traditional means of content distribution are not governed by press law but by different legal and regulatory frameworks, and not just here, but also in "UK, Europe, Australia."
Re: Re: The concern is there may be a form of regulatory capture going on
Mr. Anonymous omits facts that undercut whatever point he thinks he's making about me.
(1) I worked for EFF from 1990 to 1999. Google didn't exist then.
(2) I worked for CDT from 1999 to 2003. Google didn't fund CDT then.
(3) I worked for Public Knowledge from 2003-2005. Google didn't fund Public Knowledge.
(4) I worked for Yale University from 2005-2007. Google didn't fund my position at Yale.
(5) I worked or Wikimedia Foundation from 2007-2012. Funded by individual donations, for the most part.
(6) I worked for Internews from 2013 to 2014. Funded by the U.S. government, for the most part.
My work for R Street certainly has benefited from Google funding, as well as funding by many other sources, but my work on Section 230, now more than two decades old, has no roots in Google funding (and certainly not in Backpage funding).
My views about Section 230 are a function of my work on internet-freedom issues dating back now more than a quarter century. Maybe they're incorrect views, but nobody whose sole argument is that I was paid to have those views is likely to be persuasive on that point.
On the post: Last Chance To Opt Out Of #MyHealthRecord, Australians!
Re: Re: Sloppy writing, many missing words -- yet still TOO LONG!
On the post: Last Chance To Opt Out Of #MyHealthRecord, Australians!
Re: Sloppy writing, many missing words -- yet still TOO LONG!
On the post: Everything That's Wrong With Social Media Companies and Big Tech Platforms, Part 3
Re: Criticizing the essay
He used the word "moral panics."
(I seem to recall he used "moral panic" in Part 1.)
On the post: Has Facebook Merely Been Exploited By Our Enemies? Or Is Facebook Itself The Real Enemy?
Re: Nice way to sell your book, Godwin (wow, the irony stings)
On the post: Mike Godwin Remembers John Perry Barlow
On the post: Mike Godwin Remembers John Perry Barlow
Re: Re:
On the post: Mike Godwin Remembers John Perry Barlow
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
Re: Re: The pain of reading those articles...
Is the argument here that the internet is precisely like the "print press"? That's a difficult equation to support without analysis. Section 230 is grounded in the ways in which the internet, even in 1996, was not just the "print press" transmitted in bits, but also functions analogously to (a) telephones and telegraphs, (b) common carriers like postal services and package services, and (c) bookstores and libraries. These other traditional means of content distribution are not governed by press law but by different legal and regulatory frameworks, and not just here, but also in "UK, Europe, Australia."
Mike
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
Re: Re: The concern is there may be a form of regulatory capture going on
(1) I worked for EFF from 1990 to 1999. Google didn't exist then.
(2) I worked for CDT from 1999 to 2003. Google didn't fund CDT then.
(3) I worked for Public Knowledge from 2003-2005. Google didn't fund Public Knowledge.
(4) I worked for Yale University from 2005-2007. Google didn't fund my position at Yale.
(5) I worked or Wikimedia Foundation from 2007-2012. Funded by individual donations, for the most part.
(6) I worked for Internews from 2013 to 2014. Funded by the U.S. government, for the most part.
My work for R Street certainly has benefited from Google funding, as well as funding by many other sources, but my work on Section 230, now more than two decades old, has no roots in Google funding (and certainly not in Backpage funding).
My views about Section 230 are a function of my work on internet-freedom issues dating back now more than a quarter century. Maybe they're incorrect views, but nobody whose sole argument is that I was paid to have those views is likely to be persuasive on that point.
Mike
Next >>