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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn’t it just established that qualifications do not matter at all?