These twits presumably spent two decades drumming up support for their cause while the tech community failed to give an answer to how the Internet won't affect society negatively. The results are well deserved.
If aren't prepared to argue your point don't expect people to take you seriously. There are no lack of opinions on the Internet nor in the world. If you can't justify your own despite the ever larger resources available to do so chances are you are wrong. The reason why people on HN don't isn't because they don't have to, it's because they can't. That is why they are drawn to places where people agree with them so they can sit and "not understand what is happening" without facing their own ignorance.
So what you're saying is a vastly less rich and organized populace was never able to communicate their arguments in a concentrated enough manner so that Congress would care? Who would've thought.
This argument is stupid. The fundamental freedoms that the internet provide to the global community are too important to be taken away by old lawmakers with no understanding of the way Cyberspace works.
"Tech" is one of the richest industries in history. It has literally enabled people like Elon Musk to create their own private space programs, something most nation states are unable to do. It is also the industry that, again literally, is based on building systems to gather, present and organize people and information.
People in "tech" overall does not want to study other subjects than computer science, they do not want publish publications with other people, change the way the Internet works (in their own direction) nor organize with other people.
There is very little indicating that the support for free speech in "tech" is any more substantial than any industry's support for what serves them at the moment.
You're conflating the tech industry (what's with the constant air quotes) with the kind of people who are concerned about these laws and the effects of the dangerous precendent they set.
>People in "tech" overall does not want to study other subjects than computer science
People in a field are fans of that field and want to study it deeply? Surprises me for sure.
Because I am using the word vaguely to largely mean tech culture.
> People in a field are fans of that field and want to study it deeply? Surprises me for sure.
It is not a surprise to me. I am the one arguing that people don't actually think it is that important. Because usually when you think something is important you show an interest in it.
There are people interested in technology that also study ethics, law, psychology or even just things like information systems which are subjects that raises these questions. But those people are few and far between and tends to have a more complex view of the issue.
>These twits presumably spent two decades drumming up support for their cause while the tech community failed to give an answer to how the Internet won't affect society negatively.
It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and more so to prove that something will not exist in the future.
The burden of proof is entirely on the party that claims existence - in this case, of harfmul effects of the Internet on society.
