osewalrus (osewalrus) wrote,
osewalrus
osewalrus

Link Harvest: Reardon "debunks" the "Internet Apocolypse"

Catching up, primarily need to save this for chance to respond.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20013656-266.html?tag=topStories1

Reardon is part of a reaction to the Goog-VZ reaction of "well shucks, it isn't that big a deal, why y'all getting so excited?"

I have a few reactions that break down along two lines. One is yeah, I wish public debate in 2010 worked in a reasonable way. But since it doesn't, why do you expect proponents on the left to be any different in their advocacy style. That was the 1990s approach "we'll be reasonable, the right will be hysterical." And the left got rolled -- repeatedly. So while I'm less than thrilled, learn to deal.

Two: You cannot say "we don't need regulations because there is the power of public outcry" and then get all upset when there is public outcry. People make noise because it is the only option. Heck, until people actually start doing it, it is the approved option. So once again, you get what you reward so get over it.

Three: I'm never sure whether the correct analogy here is boiling a frog or bait and switch, but it works like this. Somehow, there is never a "right" time to get upset and require regulation to forestall a bad result. The usually line is "it's too soon, it's too soon, it's too soon . . . it's too late" usually because the bad behavior is now an industry standard or is being relied on or for whatever reason it is too late to create a rule to prevent the predicted bad outcome. Or, as I like to say "turns out last Tuesday at 3 a.m. was the one time when it would have been OK to regulate -- too bad you missed it."
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 3 comments