[dredmorbius]

You're misrepresenting Lessig's point. His was not that code replaces statutory law, but that code is one of the four forms of law: Law, Norms, Market, Architecture (including code). Which is captured in his title, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". (Emphasis added.)

The problem in this case is that morality (Norms) has gone AWOL, architecture is insufficient, and market incentives are buying statutory cover to pursue privacy eviceration with impunity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_and_Other_Laws_of_Cyber...

[dfc]

No. I never said that "code replaces statutory law." I said it was strange to see the evolution from one extreme where code trumps law to the other extreme where technology can't solve policy problems. Lessig was mentioned in between those two extremes.

[dredmorbius]

I won't tell you what you meant as you're the leading authority on that. However, what you wrote was "A little later we had Lessig saying 'code is law.'", and, if you'll allow, a reasonable interpretation of that is "code replaces law".

If you meant to convey a different meaning, you might have clarified. I stand by my statement that that appears to misrepresent Lessig's argument, which is a good one.

As for the range of opinions ... from John Gillmore to Staticsafe ... views differ. It's helpful to keep in mind that Gillmore, Lessig, and Staticsafe are all presenting arguments as challenges to conventional wisdom. To that end, presenting any of them as indicative of the CW is also ... misleading.

Unless you meant another argument.

Again: I'm not trying to tell you what you meant, but I'm telling you what I'm reading from that. And ... between exposition, clarity, and/or argument, it could be better.

Cheers.

[dfc]

Prof. Lessig said "code is law" I was just quoting him. Moreover "code replaces law" is an entirely unreasonable interpretation on its face and especially if you consider I said watch the evolution from A to B to C.

I guess I will just have to live with your disappointment.

[dfc]

It occurred to me that "x is law" (and the variants "y is bad law" "z is good law") might be specific to American English?