Well, I must be doing something right. I just got a prominent cyberrights activist to accuse me of misrepresenting the facts. Yesss! I’ve sold out, and I haven’t even bought in yet!
[ correction: said activist (who will not be named but it is Cory) pointed out that I misrepresent the facts by saying that he said that I misrepresent the facts. I have no defence here except my usual one: I was joking! Joking! Just a joke, m’lud! Ahaha. ha. damn. ]
Reuters beat me to it – their story ran at 9:45 EST. Curse you, Elinor Abreu. Wired News’s piece was longer than I thought it’d be: it explained filters and their effects far more carefully, and covered the angle of publishers having their work blocked as spam, rather than going into the detail of how Habeas’ scheme worked. Anti-spam filter’s false positives do seem to be a big deal at the moment: Dan Gillmor covered that today too. (We occasionally get hit by this at NTK, but I don’t try to re-edit for it. The only way for these dumb filters to learn is to have people lose the occasional mail. Much worse are all the prudish corporate filters, which constantly bounce NTK on the basis that it contains “sexual content”, “unsuitable language”, and on a couple of occasions “joke”.)
The one story I don’t think any of the proper media covered adequately was how the haiku infringement blackhole list will work, and just how controversial blackholes are in general. And that’s where the blogs pick up the baton.