6 ms·
> That's not the bridge too far. It's not about the JPEG, it's about the bullshit shoehorning of 'ownership' around infinitely-copyable bits put in place by a c
by bko 5y ago
> That's not the bridge too far. It's not about the JPEG, it's about the bullshit shoehorning of 'ownership' around infinitely-copyable bits put in place by a culture that seems to care more about ownership than equality.
> Digital economies are a land of plenty, where nobody can own anything and bits copy themselves freely. NFTs shoehorn a scarcity economy on top of that, which suits those with no concept of the reality of the digital world. NFTs and DRM have no place in cyberspace, yet here they are.
Wait, I'm confused. In the first part you mock the idea that NFTs amount of 'ownership' since its infinetely copyable. but the next sentence you bemoan how NFTs are introducing artificial scarcity and are like DRM.
- pennaMan 5y agoParent's central argument seems to be that creators of digital content do not deserve ownership of or royalties for their work because bits are infintley-copyable...