In looking at content created by individual users, I think the Imbuing Test is a good one, and in line with the spirit of Section 230 - apportioning blame the the creator.
I immediately become concerned with the Imbuing Test when we apply it to ranking and sorting algorithms, though. One could make the 1st amendment-supported case that my Facebook feed is a thing that is created by Facebook, and they should be allowed to make it what they want. Good. But when the selection and ordering of my Facebook feed becomes Imbued with badness, because Facebook intentionally picked the alcohol stories to send to an alcoholic, or the radicalization stories to send to a vulnerable target, couldn't the Imbuement Test assign the "objectionable quality" of my feed (distinct from the objectionable qualities of the articles themselves) to Facebook?
That raises the question of "Well, shouldn't they?" Should Facebook carry the blame for the alcoholic/alcohol story association above? If a Facebook whistleblower has a paper trail showing someone thought it would be funny to send radicalization videos to every male 16-18 years of age, should they be held liable? Would that make the Imbuement Test stronger?
Do you not think that they're going to roll out an MDM solution across the department, which keeps enterprise keys for each phone that IT controls? They'll then be able to tote it out and say "See, this is responsible encryption! If we can do it, everybody can do it!"
And you can bet that some cop who is having an affair in the department is going to tag his buddy in IT to track a phone and pull the photos, and it's going to be a below-the fold scandal that will be brushed off as a "one-off" incident. That, I think, is where the reporting should be focused, not "Ha! Ha! There's no way they'll roll out backdoored encryption because it doesn't exist!"
This article comes across as a one-sided, click-bait-ey muckrake. We know mandating breakable encryption is stupid, but setting up a paper-thin effigy and then rounding up the troops for a bonfire seems like a low bar for reporting at TechDirt.
Mike, I've been a big fan of TechDirt for a long time, but in this particular case, your argument of "If Hollywood can't figure out its own technology issues, why does it think that the tech industry should solve all its problems for it?" fails basic argument.
In any other venue, how would this argument pan out? "If {Masnick} can't figure out his own {abdominal surgery} issues, why does he think the {surgeon} should solve all his problems for him?" We both know they're spitting in the wind, but constructing the argument this way makes you sound like a partisan pundit poking at the opposition rather than a considered thinker pointing out the gaps in a flawed system.
Yes, they're off-base, but calling on experts to exercise their expertise when you're not an expert really isn't a basis for mockery.
This is the kind of light reporting that is fun to read at TechDirt: smirky, tongue-in-cheek head-shaking at the world. Matherne set himself up, decided to forgo spell-checking, and to assert his own bizarre legal system on the rest of the world. A perfect bump and set for widespread mockery on the internet.
After 16 paragraphs of well-deserved ribbing of his theories and correspondence, however, you decided to shift gears into an ad hominem attack of the structure of his website. Perhaps it was just to besmirch his character as a link-spammer, but I think it degraded your rhetoric on his ideas by going there. You can't do much about what people below the line right, but as a supporter, I'd ask that you keep it classy on top.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bob Hansen.
"Imbuing" is a pretty loaded test, too
In looking at content created by individual users, I think the Imbuing Test is a good one, and in line with the spirit of Section 230 - apportioning blame the the creator. I immediately become concerned with the Imbuing Test when we apply it to ranking and sorting algorithms, though. One could make the 1st amendment-supported case that my Facebook feed is a thing that is created by Facebook, and they should be allowed to make it what they want. Good. But when the selection and ordering of my Facebook feed becomes Imbued with badness, because Facebook intentionally picked the alcohol stories to send to an alcoholic, or the radicalization stories to send to a vulnerable target, couldn't the Imbuement Test assign the "objectionable quality" of my feed (distinct from the objectionable qualities of the articles themselves) to Facebook? That raises the question of "Well, shouldn't they?" Should Facebook carry the blame for the alcoholic/alcohol story association above? If a Facebook whistleblower has a paper trail showing someone thought it would be funny to send radicalization videos to every male 16-18 years of age, should they be held liable? Would that make the Imbuement Test stronger?
This is a foolish rhetorical stance to take
Do you not think that they're going to roll out an MDM solution across the department, which keeps enterprise keys for each phone that IT controls? They'll then be able to tote it out and say "See, this is responsible encryption! If we can do it, everybody can do it!"
And you can bet that some cop who is having an affair in the department is going to tag his buddy in IT to track a phone and pull the photos, and it's going to be a below-the fold scandal that will be brushed off as a "one-off" incident. That, I think, is where the reporting should be focused, not "Ha! Ha! There's no way they'll roll out backdoored encryption because it doesn't exist!"
This article comes across as a one-sided, click-bait-ey muckrake. We know mandating breakable encryption is stupid, but setting up a paper-thin effigy and then rounding up the troops for a bonfire seems like a low bar for reporting at TechDirt.
I think this argument is below you
Mike, I've been a big fan of TechDirt for a long time, but in this particular case, your argument of "If Hollywood can't figure out its own technology issues, why does it think that the tech industry should solve all its problems for it?" fails basic argument.
In any other venue, how would this argument pan out? "If {Masnick} can't figure out his own {abdominal surgery} issues, why does he think the {surgeon} should solve all his problems for him?" We both know they're spitting in the wind, but constructing the argument this way makes you sound like a partisan pundit poking at the opposition rather than a considered thinker pointing out the gaps in a flawed system.
Yes, they're off-base, but calling on experts to exercise their expertise when you're not an expert really isn't a basis for mockery.
Poor Form
This is the kind of light reporting that is fun to read at TechDirt: smirky, tongue-in-cheek head-shaking at the world. Matherne set himself up, decided to forgo spell-checking, and to assert his own bizarre legal system on the rest of the world. A perfect bump and set for widespread mockery on the internet.
After 16 paragraphs of well-deserved ribbing of his theories and correspondence, however, you decided to shift gears into an ad hominem attack of the structure of his website. Perhaps it was just to besmirch his character as a link-spammer, but I think it degraded your rhetoric on his ideas by going there. You can't do much about what people below the line right, but as a supporter, I'd ask that you keep it classy on top.