Cid episode 1260
Which is rather depressing, personally, but it raises another issue, and one that ties back into the advocacy I do defending the statute and why I do it so fervently. After all, we might have convinced him of the statute's merit, or at least given him some actual factual fodder to include in his supposedly factual accounting of the law, and that was obviously not the piece he wanted to write.Īnd so it turns out that my first mention in WIRED is a misrepresentation of my advocacy. It reads as a hit piece, not just against the law itself but its supporters, and one that he was apparently so determined to make that speaking with us, and affording us the chance to explain our views and what informs them, was not something he could chance. But despite speaking with several of the law's detractors, he spoke to only one of its defenders, even though he obviously considered several of us expert enough to misleadingly reference our work in support of his dubious argument. Nor did the author let me speak for my work either, which could have corrected his apparent misapprehensions, if not about Section 230's merit at large, then at least the bigger picture I was getting at in the particular brief he had honed in on. And then he used that mischaracterization of what I had argued as ammunition to underpin his anti-230 argument. Instead he stripped it of its context, plucking out only bits of the overall argument, citing ideas so incompletely, so orphaned from the overall message in which they were delivered, as to effectively mischaracterize my position. The problem was, the author of this piece didn't let it speak for itself. Ordinarily, of course, my work can speak for itself. But that wasn't all it was, because the piece didn't just make that general statement it used my own work to do it, and in the most disingenuous way. But this isn't the first bad Section 230 take and unfortunately is unlikely to be the last, so if that were all it was it might be much easier to simply let it fade into history. Such an assertion is, of course, ridiculous. After all, as the title says, "Everything you've heard about Section 230 is wrong," including, it would seem, everything we've been saying about it all along.
![cid episode 1260 cid episode 1260](https://www.distantorigin.co.uk/img/episodes/panel/episodes_259821_4854710.jpg)
![cid episode 1260 cid episode 1260](https://walter.trakt.tv/images/shows/000/015/161/fanarts/thumb/b97bbd52ec.jpg)
![cid episode 1260 cid episode 1260](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9PJQ0DtocQ/hq720.jpg)
#Cid episode 1260 professional#
My work was referenced in support of a terrible take on Section 230, which not only argued that Section 230 should be repealed (something that I spend a great deal of personal and professional energy trying to push back against) but masqueraded as a factual explanation of how there was no possible reasonable defense of the law and that therefore all its defenders (including me) are, essentially, pulling a fast one on the public by insisting it is important to hold onto. Like Mike, I've been reading it since its beginning, as a then student studying information technology and watching the Internet take hold in the world. I always thought it would be a great honor to be referenced in the hallowed pages of WIRED magazine.