How the Supreme Court in the Netchoice oral arguments got snagged on the most basic problem in the history of the Internet, and what that reveals about how they should rule
Thanks for letting me know it wasn't just me. It wasn't the flu or whatever you had. I was trying to summarize the mush at the dinner table last night, and I really couldn't. I was as clear headed as I ever am, although that might not be saying much. 🤣 Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
Thanks for the perspective, but I’m curious why you find “the world” more compelling than Al Gore’s antiquated “superhighway”.
To my literal, technical, and not legally-trained mind; the internet operates as a method of access in the highlighted analogies. Perhaps “transportation infrastructure” is a bit more accurate, but let’s keep it to roads for simplicity. Roads support the transport of people, goods, and information. They carry people with ideas from one place to another, to share those ideas with other people. They facilitate the exchange of letters, and other physical media intended to entertain, educate, or even titillate.
Crucially, these transports are all point to point. In the realm of transport infrastructure you’re beholden to rigid origins and destinations, not unlike how - at a simple level - all internet traffic is basically IP to IP negotiations (albeit with lots of mediators and ignoring 40 years of network engineering weeds that don’t illuminate the analogies). Contrast that to “the world” which is a diffuse place with innumerable pathways by which things can get from A to B.
As I write that, I feel perhaps I missed your point. The point is that the interpretations are open ended, and the utility of such analogies is limited - much like the theoretical over-broad regulations you mention at the end of the piece. I may be suffering from engineer’s disease and being too literal minded.
Thanks for letting me know it wasn't just me. It wasn't the flu or whatever you had. I was trying to summarize the mush at the dinner table last night, and I really couldn't. I was as clear headed as I ever am, although that might not be saying much. 🤣 Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
If only the Supreme Court justices would read this.
Thanks for the perspective, but I’m curious why you find “the world” more compelling than Al Gore’s antiquated “superhighway”.
To my literal, technical, and not legally-trained mind; the internet operates as a method of access in the highlighted analogies. Perhaps “transportation infrastructure” is a bit more accurate, but let’s keep it to roads for simplicity. Roads support the transport of people, goods, and information. They carry people with ideas from one place to another, to share those ideas with other people. They facilitate the exchange of letters, and other physical media intended to entertain, educate, or even titillate.
Crucially, these transports are all point to point. In the realm of transport infrastructure you’re beholden to rigid origins and destinations, not unlike how - at a simple level - all internet traffic is basically IP to IP negotiations (albeit with lots of mediators and ignoring 40 years of network engineering weeds that don’t illuminate the analogies). Contrast that to “the world” which is a diffuse place with innumerable pathways by which things can get from A to B.
As I write that, I feel perhaps I missed your point. The point is that the interpretations are open ended, and the utility of such analogies is limited - much like the theoretical over-broad regulations you mention at the end of the piece. I may be suffering from engineer’s disease and being too literal minded.