3 ms·

Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsui

Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about? You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Yet it's meant fines and lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find, in America, aimed at individuals. Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago [1]. > seems like misdirection "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tanseydavid 3y ago
  I agree -- it does seem like intentional misdirection.
- ricardo81 3y ago
  Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from implying you're directing away from the point, and nor should it. >I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.
  - vertere 3y ago
    You seem to have a very narrow view of what is a relevant or a valid comment. Just because a counterargument doesn't completely refute the original comment, or "introduces" new concepts, doesn't make it irrelevant or "misdirection". Someone compared treatment of X 20 years ago to treatment of Y today -- seems pretty natural to bring up treatment of X more recently. You can't just say "the original comment didn't mention it so you can't mention it either". I don't see how your accusations of bad faith are warranted.
    - ricardo81 3y ago
      If your doubts are true, why did you have to introduce an analogy? I feel I have a pretty open view. And, there's no definition of a 'valid' comment. I'll address points, raise points or whatever. Sorry, I'm not in the realm of 'valid' comments, never was.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > why did you have to introduce an analogy? GP made a comparison! How do you refute a comparison without criticising the comparison? > I'm not in the realm of 'valid' comments, never was Claiming misdirection is an argument about validity.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Yet it's meant fines and lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find, in America, aimed at individuals. Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago [1]. > seems like misdirection "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tanseydavid 3y ago
I agree -- it does seem like intentional misdirection.
ricardo81 3y ago
Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from implying you're directing away from the point, and nor should it. >I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.
- vertere 3y ago
  You seem to have a very narrow view of what is a relevant or a valid comment. Just because a counterargument doesn't completely refute the original comment, or "introduces" new concepts, doesn't make it irrelevant or "misdirection". Someone compared treatment of X 20 years ago to treatment of Y today -- seems pretty natural to bring up treatment of X more recently. You can't just say "the original comment didn't mention it so you can't mention it either". I don't see how your accusations of bad faith are warranted.
  - ricardo81 3y ago
    If your doubts are true, why did you have to introduce an analogy? I feel I have a pretty open view. And, there's no definition of a 'valid' comment. I'll address points, raise points or whatever. Sorry, I'm not in the realm of 'valid' comments, never was.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > why did you have to introduce an analogy? GP made a comparison! How do you refute a comparison without criticising the comparison? > I'm not in the realm of 'valid' comments, never was Claiming misdirection is an argument about validity.