Earnestly referring to giant swaths of heterogeneous infrastructure as "the algorithm" is one good way to know you probably aren't the best person to suggest revisions to technology laws.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
It's the terminology Facebook itself uses publicly, so there's that. As long as the idea being expressed carries essential truth and broadly understandable meaning, I don't think there's real harm in some simplistic shorthand.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hteasley @cmuratori
And, when users wish to talk about the user experience, often the last people to understand are the engineers that developed the app.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hteasley @cmuratori
The bias is strong to say, "You don't understand how it works, so your request is invalid." which often stands in for, "It's really hard to do what you ask, and I don't want to do it. I want to do something else."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hteasley
No, the point is that tech policy law has to be informed by what the technology actually is. If you change the requirements without understanding how it works, you can create even worse outcomes than what you started with.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
I don't think I agree. Tying legislation to actual technology, as opposed to the underlying concepts or experience of technology, leads to very specific legislation about specific technology, which will be immediately outmoded, and thus inapplicable, while the problem lives on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hteasley
Legislating outcomes doesn't really work. At least, I can't think of a time when it has worked. What it mostly will do is kick the can to the court system, which will then be very unpredictable because they are being asked to do what was supposed to be the legislature's job.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @hteasley
Legislating specific behaviors, on the other hand, does seem to work. Things like common carrier work very well because they are unambiguous. Courts don't have trouble with things like "never inspect packets" or things like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
Here we reach common ground, mostly. Behaviors like "deleting personal data" can be demanded. But "never inspect packets" becomes a problem with we move to IPv18 and packets are now "glomules" and we have to fight over whether or not the law covers glomules.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hteasley
I mean things like Section 230, the DMCA, liability, etc. I actually do think they should be revised, but I then _don't_ think they should be revised because I hear the people speak who might revise them and I'm like "this won't end well."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That said, IPv18 Glomules are a major step forward for the internet. It is the first time we will be able to have true peer-to-peer Glomules on the self-driving blockchain.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.