3 ms·
There's a case to be made here, perhaps, but Mr. Cox sure isn't making it. I recommend against paying him any more attention than he's already getting.
by funkah 15y ago
There's a case to be made here, perhaps, but Mr. Cox sure isn't making it. I recommend against paying him any more attention than he's already getting.
- ahoyhere 15y agoHave to agree with you there. His premise is interesting, and he opened strong, but then it devolved into a series of terrible "I don't know what I'm talking about" moments.
- fatjokes 15y agocan you elaborate on why you think he's failing?
- chc 15y agoI think the most egregious example is his recap of the SOPA blackout. He accuses Google of "looking the other way" on copyright violations (a _AA talking point that they have never substantiated), points out in a nudge-nudge sort of way that "it was remarkable how quickly legislators caved" after the blackout, and then notes that "tellingly" Google didn't participate in the blackout but the nonprofit Wikipedia did. There is no coherent argument there, just a bunch of _AA talking points clumsily thrown around. Like, Google's really into profiting off copyright violations, so Wikipedia blacked out its site? Huh? It's just plain sloppy. Even worse is what he left out: Nowhere does he acknowledge the real issues anyone had with SOPA, even in passing. If all you had to go on was this article, you'd think it was the most benign thing ever and the only people who opposed it were those who can't stand the idea of copyright in general. And to support the _AA narrative of "Silicon Valley abused its power," he skips straight from the blackout to SOPA being withdrawn, completely ignoring that it was ultimately the public backlash fanned by the blackout that did SOPA in.