Bacch
Bacch t1_j9n11ze wrote
Reply to comment by override367 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
I feel like there's one key difference. When I buy a book, take it home, and read it, another one doesn't magically appear in my hands open to the first page and with my eyes already reading it faster than I can slam it shut. With a video online? That's typically how it goes. You've got about 8 seconds to click whatever button stops it from dumping you onto the next "suggested" video.
Bacch t1_j9njwqk wrote
Reply to comment by override367 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
Sure, you can, I can, hell, most of Reddit can figure that out.
Now consider that the people I just mentioned are in the top, let's say, 10% of the "internet savvy" bellcurve. Maybe that's generous. Move that number in either direction as wildly as you like, and it's still a stunning number of people who will go to their graves without it ever occurring to them that the option you just mentioned is right there--even when it's on their screen.
People are dumb. We make an awful lot of laws to accommodate them, and in some cases, because dumb people do even dumber things when they don't know better. These folks are too dumb to know better. And wind up doing dumb, dangerous, or worse things. If there's any link that can be tied back to something that lawmakers or the courts think they can fix with their own Dunning-Kruger perspective, they'll generally tie it and then fix it in the most obtuse and generally worst conceivable way possible.