Consensus is inextricable from intention.

If someone obfuscates data that software prevents when not obfuscated, that absolves the software of liability for the obfuscated data. It would be considered an exploit of the software, not a feature. For example: If a website allows users to upload and store text files but blocks video and and music files, and a user decides to upload text files containing base64 encoded video files in parts with the titles of the text files establishing the order that when joined back together can with some effort be parsed back into a playable video. This doesn't mean the website is allowing video uploads now. The user doing so is exploiting the terms of the website. That's very different from a site owner saying "well people are going to upload text encoded video files in pieces and we can't stop them, let's just allow video file uploads". Now they have some obligation to run scans on the video uploads for illegal content and have to have to update their terms of service to make the users agree not to upload illegal video content etc. Simply preventing the video uploads in the first place prevents them from having to deal with that liability. This is how I interpret what Luke is saying here. It doesn't seem stupid at first face--how are you reading it that it seems stupid?