Comments on: Responses to Blog Reviews of The Future of Reputation: Part III http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/responses_to_bl_2.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jon Garfunkel http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/responses_to_bl_2.html/comment-page-1#comment-51177 Jon Garfunkel Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:43:07 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/responses-to-blog-reviews-of-the-future-of-reputation-part-iii.html#comment-51177 re: "I'd love to see some concrete attempts at reworking § 230." I don't feel quite capable of re-writing federal law. I'm a humble software process architect, after all. :-) So when I originally sought to tackle this problem over the summer, my natural thought was to come up with a <a href="http://civilities.net/PONAR" rel="nofollow">protocol</a> for adjudicating claims. To a software engineer, the difference between DMCA §512 and CDA §230 is a bunch of business rules. And, that said, if there are any free-speech-absolutists/don't-touch-my-230 folks out there, and you'd like to help me on my design for a non-legally-binding adjudication protocol, drop me a line... re: “I’d love to see some concrete attempts at reworking § 230.”

I don’t feel quite capable of re-writing federal law. I’m a humble software process architect, after all. :-) So when I originally sought to tackle this problem over the summer, my natural thought was to come up with a protocol for adjudicating claims. To a software engineer, the difference between DMCA §512 and CDA §230 is a bunch of business rules.

And, that said, if there are any free-speech-absolutists/don’t-touch-my-230 folks out there, and you’d like to help me on my design for a non-legally-binding adjudication protocol, drop me a line…

]]>