Doctorow: don’t retaliate with more tariffs, hit them where it hurts.
Pluralistic: Canada shouldn’t retaliate with US tariffs; Picks and Shovels Chapter One (Part 6 – CONCLUSION) (15 Jan 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
You're viewing a single thread.
Can we stop sharing this guy's every word like he's an authority on everything? He's a blogger, not an expert on international relations.
Activist, prolific novelist, EFF organizer and analyst, and then some. Lived and worked in both countries and deeply involved in digital rights and intellectual property policy. Probably worth paying attention on this particular issue.
Also, major exaggeration on the ‘every word’ whinge. He’s prolific and targeting the fediverse.
First, he’s not alone. There was a globe and mail editorial that also boosted this idea, with an emphasis on drug and AI patents.
Second, he doesn’t claim expertise in trade relations; he’s an expert on the recent history of IP and reasonable claim in that.
But frankly, what expertise in international relations is appropriate? Trump is blowing shit up, and does not act like a rational actor. Can you name someone who IS an expert on how to handle this?
invalidating all drug patents here would be awesome. I’d even go so far to offer them at cost to Americans in need who come for a visit.
Need some insulin? How about $5 for a months supply instead of $300. We want the American public on our side even if their “leaders” aren’t.
The only new thing about this is that it's coming from the US. Irrational governments have and do exist in the real world and people have been dealing with them for centuries. Maybe look to them for answers instead of the random internet celebrity that has zero experience in the matter.
Could you engage with the content instead of being upset that a person is prolific? I personally have enjoyed everything I've read from this person. I'm not claiming they're an expert, I'm claiming I like their perspective even if I don't always agree with it. That's exactly the kind of material I want to see on Lemmy.
The content is meaningless because he isn't qualified. Valuing enjoyment and entertainment over information from people actually well versed in the given field is exactly how you get what's happening in the US right now. It's an appeal to emotion rather than logic - ironically something I expect Cory would claim to be against.
That's a bad argument and frankly a shit take. An artist doesn't have to be have a formal degree to make food art, a journalist doesn't have to have a formal degree to do good investigative work, and no one needs to go to culinary school to post a good recipe they made. Your argument doesn't make sense on face value in numerous situations.
Qualification is primary source material is valuable. I want to know the doctors who run clinical trials are qualified, registered, and in good standing. I want that data published from a reputable source but not necessarily a qualified one. And I want people who are good at explaining data, with a rational perspective, to explain that data in every medium they can. Distributing, digesting, repackaging, and resynthesizing facts do not require qualification and can still provide benefit.
Doubly so when conversing about a topic, writing philosophy, or debating a political stance. I don't need every 9-5 worker to be qualified in a subject matter when talking to them about it, I just need them to be rational. Starting that conversation and formulating opinions is what I enjoy about Cory's work. I do not need a PhD or a government official to do that. If someone has thoughts worth considering, if they communicate them in an agreeable manner, and if they do so in a public space correct for that conversation then they provide value regardless of their qualifications.
I think your deduction as to why we're in the shape we're in in the US is poorly formed. People didn't just wake up one day and decide to get their news from the clown network and then they voted in a clown. People who wanted more power and control deregulated industries, moved money out of communities, worsened public education, monopolized the media, monopolized industry, and stoked fear until people wanted any change and promise of safety regardless of who gave it.
I think what you're doing now, trying to silence positive educated voices on the Internet, enables those bad people to continue their evil work. Because it cost other people like myself time to respond to this bad opinion that could have done harm if supported by enough people. Gatekeepers and authority are not the deciders of what is valuable and what isn't.
I think your deduction as to why we’re in the shape we’re in in the US is poorly formed. People didn’t just wake up one day and decide to get their news from the clown network and then they voted in a clown. People who wanted more power and control deregulated industries, moved money out of communities, worsened public education, monopolized the media, monopolized industry, and stoked fear until people wanted any change and promise of safety regardless of who gave it.
I figured I'd summarize to the more immediate issue instead of writing a treatise on the last 70 years of US society. Sorry, I guess?
As for the topic at hand, my point is that Cory isn't a "positive educated voice" in this matter. He's shoehorning his special interest that he's questionably qualified at into a topic that is entirely separate. And the only reason he has a platform is because he appeals to Internet denizens with his stoking of righteous anger at corporations. That's far from a good baseline to start with when the stakes are that much higher than a blog article.
Ultimately, my "bad opinion" that you think is so harmful is that people should listen to voices with experience on the matter. I gather from your reply that you have gripes with authority figures, but I promise you that letting pop figures dictate the discussion isn't going to solve anything.
I'm saying you summarized incorrectly. I'm not accusing you of being too succinct, I'm accusing you of being wrong.
You refuse to argue the subject matter and rely on attacking the person. I'm not here to defend Cory, I don't know the person. I'm here to say your opinion is bad and I want other people to think about it because you clearly haven't. International copyright law is a tool nations use to make trade beneficial to both sides theoretically, yes? The US is in a trade war with its allies, which I'd like to point out is not supported by anyone qualified on the subject matter that I can find. So wouldn't it make sense for countries at war to reconsider all trade tools during a trade war? That seems like a pretty fuckin basic concept. Pretty related to the conversation wouldn't you say - copyright laws and trade wars?
Whether you or I agree or disagree with the approach, well that's interesting if a bit meaningless because I assume neither of us is an elected representative. But at least it's interesting. What would be a good tool for those under attack to use for the benefit of the most people? I'd like to know that. Maybe if I did I could advocate for it, or do more research and spread the knowledge, or generally better my own understanding of society.
Instead I'm arguing with you about whether or not a person should be allowed to have an opinion on a community built on peoples opinions. It's a stupid position to have when the content is value added. He has a platform because he writes and he writes enough that he's bound to get attention if his material is good enough and it happens to have been good enough multiple times. Idk why that makes you so upset. It feels small to try and pair down a person's success, however minor, to one single thing. Especially while ignoring their contributions. Again I repeat, you're a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution.
If you want more opinions posted from reputable sources fuckin post em. But you come off as condescending and wrong when you assume people aren't listening to voices "with experience" just because they engage with voices you disagree with. Most people are capable of taking in multiple sources and coming to the correct conclusion, including but not limited to weighing educated specialist opinions more than random blogger's opinions.
I love that you're seeing what you want to see here but I can promise you that I have no love for pop figures. That's again, a weird old person assumption. People should listen when experts talk. That doesn't mean they should ignore all other voices. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
First time on the Internet? Surely you don't think that all the people commenting online are experts in the topic being discussed. Whether he is an expert or not, just because you don't like him, you tell other people not to post his articles. Personally, the only thing I know about the guy is he coined the term "enshittification", which some people don't like, but he was right in his description of the term. Otherwise, we'd all be using Reddit still.
It's the Internet. People are going to do or say thing other people don't like. Don't take it personally.
I'm not "taking it personally". And he's not just someone "commenting online" - he's advocating for the Canadian government to take specific action based on his unqualified opinion, and I'm saying it shouldn't be given a platform just because he has name recognition. It's not unreasonable to call that out, and acting like I'm being hysterical just to discredit me is shitty.
A blogger and…
Dude has had some fairly prophetic understandings of how thing are headed for years, so he does have some background on a potentially valid pov.
Ah yes, he's the "Internet prophet". That gives him credibility.
No, but it gives him a reason to be read and considered. Taking anyone’s ideas just because they said them is… problematic to say the least.
I am just trying to give you a bit more context than you seem willing to find, and, as everyone who has responded in this thread seems to note, you are writing responses that seem bizarrely … aggressive?
I mean, I’m not wed to the idea, nor am I to all the man’s writings, but you seem extremely set against him with no explanation.
Dude has worked at the EFF for a long time and is a published author. How is he not qualified to speak on copyright and IP?
If a hammer suggests using a nail to cook your sandwich, do you think maybe he has a point because he knows nails, or do you consider that maybe he just knows nothing about cooking?
Also, anyone can get "published". It means nothing.
do you even know what the EFF does?
Also, anyone can get “published”. It means nothing.
you mean like how you publish your comments all over the internet?
Wasn't it just established that qualifications do not matter at all?
Because that's what we should be accepting now? Really?