Mike Godwin’s Techdirt Profile


About Mike Godwin

Mike Godwin’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 6th, 2018 @ 7:52am

    Re: Nice way to sell your book, Godwin (wow, the irony stings)

    Wait, what book am I selling? At any rate, I think I made clear that I disagree with a number of things in both books.

  • Feb 9th, 2018 @ 6:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    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.

  • Feb 9th, 2018 @ 6:41pm

    Re: Re:

    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.

  • Feb 8th, 2018 @ 3:31pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think it's a fair criticism, and it's one I expected. I didn't pick the title though.

  • Sep 19th, 2017 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: The pain of reading those articles...

    '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."


  • Sep 18th, 2017 @ 4:29pm

    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.