We should abandon the ideal of the sublime in cyberlaw. Good enough is, generally, good enough. Patchy censorship bolsters authoritarian governments. Imperfectly anonymized data generates socially valuable research at little risk. And a leaky IP system still supports a thriving, diverse artistic scene. Pursuing perfection distracts us from the tradeoffs inherent in information control, by reifying a perspective that downplays countervailing considerations. Perfection is not an end, it is a means—a political tactic that advances one particular agenda. This Essay argues that the imperfect—the flawed—is often both effective and even desirable as an outcome of legal regulation.