[throwaway100773]

I find this type of logic to be inconsistent with the innovative culture of tech, and a fair bit hypocritical. On one hand, we have a new, fairly unprecedented technology (at least unprecedented on the scale on which it’s used) yet we are relying on tort law that predates the contemplation of anything of this magnitude. Why?

It was reasonable in 1990 that the mechanism that you suggest here would be highly effective in most cases. We are in uncharted waters now and unlike the titanic, I think we should proceed with caution.

[thaumasiotes]

I think I can characterize your position here with a bit of unfairness as "the innovative culture of tech means tech needs to stop being innovative".

I'd like to hear your comments on why in particular that's an unfair characterization, if you're willing.