undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandsoitis2y ago0 comments

What makes it arbitrary is that "a public safety exemption" isn't specified or codified in the language of the anticipated regulation.

Even it if were, there's also another practical wrinkle with using the concept of "public safety" when it comes to "news". Would the definition, for example, include "fake news"?

A company can also decide that it is too risky to automatically detect whether a news article complies with the law (e.g. IF public_safety THEN allow_share) and so it is more practical to just have a simple exclusion for sharing news.

0 comments

JKCalhoun2y ago

I acknowledged that "public safety" would be a sticking point.

But I think it's not naive to believe that new laws might have unintended consequences that need to be addressed in amendments or follow-up laws. A generous view of what is happening now is exactly that: a wild fire revealed an unintended consequence.

Why though is the only alternative to let the corporations Do As Thou Wilt?

andsoitisOP2y ago

I think all that matters is that Canadians are informed about the fires. If the Canadian government is acting in good faith by "demanding" then they should reflect on whether there's a problem with public safety information flow.

> Why though is the only alternative to let the corporations Do As Thou Wilt?

Is that what is happening here? That's not my read.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse