|
|
|
|
|
|
by genmon
1014 days ago
|
|
|
I guess the distinction comes from the type of underlying 'no'. These cases in the UK are a decided response to no-type-3: "we actually can’t do that". Whereas Meta disallowing news links in Canada (another enough-is-enough response) is because of a no-type-2: "that’s a really bad idea". Useful to have Evans' typology to distinguish those two cases. (As a counterfactual in the UK, the decided response _could_ have been, "we actually can't do that technically, but ok we'll change the architecture, destroy our brand promise and increase the attack surface, and put the back doors in anyway.") |
|
|
That's why no-type-2 and no-type-3 don't have an strict line separating them. This is an example of both, because it's probably not being done because a lot of other countries would deem their service illegal if they did it, and not really for technical reasons.