• zipsglacier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    We’re talking about legality: it’s stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details.

    My point, and my understanding of the EFF article, is that we do need a law that establishes just who can be held responsible, and how so. But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and providers*. That would be a world where no one gets rich from internet infrastructure, and I would enjoy that very much.

    *Another typo?! Oof.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and [providers].

      Yes, that’s exactly what I’m imagining. (Any tips on how I could’ve made that clearer from my first comment?)

      • zipsglacier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Awesome! No, I don’t think your first comment needs to be different. You explicitly mention taking an extreme limit in the second sentence. I only realized after our first back-and-forth that I was implicitly thinking of a more near/medium-term situation. Like, how do we get from here, now, to the longer-term world we could hope for.

        So, that’s how I read the EFF article. But it’s of course OK, and (dare I say!?) possibly even good, that we talk about different views on this stuff! So, thanks :)