IssueRaiser

I suppose my point is merely that I believe there are colorable arguments to bring forth to hold both WB and their lawyers accountable fo...

I suppose my point is merely that I believe there are colorable arguments to bring forth to hold both WB and their lawyers accountable for these antics, if you look at the text of the law. Like many legal arguments that haven't been heavily litigated, the outcome is somewhat uncertain. For various political reasons, the parties with standing are either too poor or have various incentives to cooperate with WB, and so we don't see how these arguments actually play out in courtrooms -- we just end up with a de facto system that favors big players. This is frustrating, because people buy in to the argument that the law is the problem, when really, it's the politics of corporations that cause the problems surrounding takedowns, and that's the issue we should be addressing our energy towards. (Were, for instance, Google to have the opposite incentives for some reason, again, it wouldn't matter what the law said, the de facto system would tilt the other way.) I don't think we actually disagree on that point, and I think I articulated it poorly the first time.

Posted by ObviousScience on Jul 24, 2015, 2:42 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

I suppose my point is merely that I believe there are colorable arguments to bring forth to hold both WB and their lawyers accountable fo...

ObviousScienceJul 24, 2015, 2:42 PM

I suppose my point is merely that I believe there are colorable arguments to bring forth to hold both WB and their lawyers accountable for these antics, if you look at the text of the law. Like many legal arguments that haven't been heavily litigated, the outcome is somewhat uncertain. For various political reasons, the parties with standing are either too poor or have various incentives to cooperate with WB, and so we don't see how these arguments actually play out in courtrooms -- we just end up with a de facto system that favors big players. This is frustrating, because people buy in to the argument that the law is the problem, when really, it's the politics of corporations that cause the problems surrounding takedowns, and that's the issue we should be addressing our energy towards. (Were, for instance, Google to have the opposite incentives for some reason, again, it wouldn't matter what the law said, the de facto system would tilt the other way.) I don't think we actually disagree on that point, and I think I articulated it poorly the first time.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue