5 ms·

Cory Doctorow has it right. Since the USA is applying tariffs to everyone everywhere anyway, everyone should abandon their US free trade agreements and get rid

Cory Doctorow has it right. Since the USA is applying tariffs to everyone everywhere anyway, everyone should abandon their US free trade agreements and get rid of the agreement required local laws that allow US companies to shut down others for felony violation of business model.

CamperBob2 9mo ago
Indeed, we in the US are about to find out what it means to voluntarily give up every bit of soft power we wielded in the post-WWII international order.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> everyone should abandon their US free trade agreements Do you have a link to Doctorow's argument? On its face, this is incredibly stupid--for most economies, the cost of losing a FTA is well above any of the tariff levels being discussed.
- dustyharddrive 9mo ago
  https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-a-post-american-enshittification-resistant-internet https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-a-post-american-enshittification...
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    Thank you. Is there a transcript? I'm specifically interested in whether he's making an actual argument around trade, or if he's speaking metaphorically.
    - alephnerd 9mo ago
      Transcript - https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ He's serious in a techno-accelerationist manner, specifically around anticircumvention laws. That said, knowing the strength of the MT in TMT within the EU, it's more of an idealistic dream than a reality.
      - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > serious in a techno-accelerationist manner, specifically around anticircumvention laws So not serious as a policy proposal but serious for playing to his base. Got it. Disappointing coming from him. But I guess we all have to tend to our power.
        alephnerd 9mo ago
        Yep, but I think Cory truly believes this stuff deep down.
        pessimizer 9mo ago
        He can't actually believe it. He's pretending like he doesn't know how numbers work, and burying it in words. There's a difference between a 1% tariff, a 2% tariff, and a 25% tariff. Just like there's a difference in forcing you to accept anticircumvention laws and forcing you to give up Greenland. > Well, they're saying that they won't take our coffee unless we give them anticircumvention. And I'm sorry, but we just can't lose the US coffee market. Our economy would collapse. So we're going to give them anticircumvention. I'm really sorry." > That's it. That's why every government in the world allowed US Big Tech companies to declare open season on their people's private data and ready cash. > The alternative was tariffs. Well, I don't know if you've heard, but we've got tariffs now! Comparing having any tariff to having your house burned down is pretending that it's not possible just to have your barn burned down. Or to have a window painted over. Or to have to trim the branches on your trees. Which ask is going to push you to the point where you give up your coffee industry? Nah, let's pretend not to know that all of this can be quantified, and that Hungary has any real leverage over the US on its own. If the US is asking too much from Hungary, Hungary can go to China or India - but China or India can ask for anything marginally less than what the US asked for, or can even agree with the US to ask for exactly what the US asked for. And Europe has cut itself off from Russian resources for ideological reasons, so it can't even take advantage of the fact that Russia's market for its resources is somewhat limited. He's suffering from applause addiction. China can do what they want because they are not a dependency of the US. Europe is. If anything, with all of his invective about Orban (because Orban is ideologically unpleasant), Hungary is in a better position than Europe as a whole because the Orban government doesn't have the self-destructive Russophobia that the rest of Europe does. Hungary can choose at any time whether to be in Europe or to rely on Russia, and China. That's more leverage than Europe has.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
wakawaka28 9mo ago
Small countries would be hurt worse than the US if they choose to ignore US IP law. The US has far more IP than they do, and represents most of their market, and possesses unique capabilities to retaliate. Tearing down IP law would also hurt consumers of IP because authors and artists would have limited means to get paid. It's a losing proposition on four fronts.

CamperBob2 9mo ago

Indeed, we in the US are about to find out what it means to voluntarily give up every bit of soft power we wielded in the post-WWII international order.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> everyone should abandon their US free trade agreements Do you have a link to Doctorow's argument? On its face, this is incredibly stupid--for most economies, the cost of losing a FTA is well above any of the tariff levels being discussed.

dustyharddrive 9mo ago
https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-a-post-american-enshittification-resistant-internet https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-a-post-american-enshittification...
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  Thank you. Is there a transcript? I'm specifically interested in whether he's making an actual argument around trade, or if he's speaking metaphorically.
  - alephnerd 9mo ago
    Transcript - https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ He's serious in a techno-accelerationist manner, specifically around anticircumvention laws. That said, knowing the strength of the MT in TMT within the EU, it's more of an idealistic dream than a reality.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > serious in a techno-accelerationist manner, specifically around anticircumvention laws So not serious as a policy proposal but serious for playing to his base. Got it. Disappointing coming from him. But I guess we all have to tend to our power.
      - alephnerd 9mo ago
        Yep, but I think Cory truly believes this stuff deep down.
        pessimizer 9mo ago
        He can't actually believe it. He's pretending like he doesn't know how numbers work, and burying it in words. There's a difference between a 1% tariff, a 2% tariff, and a 25% tariff. Just like there's a difference in forcing you to accept anticircumvention laws and forcing you to give up Greenland. > Well, they're saying that they won't take our coffee unless we give them anticircumvention. And I'm sorry, but we just can't lose the US coffee market. Our economy would collapse. So we're going to give them anticircumvention. I'm really sorry." > That's it. That's why every government in the world allowed US Big Tech companies to declare open season on their people's private data and ready cash. > The alternative was tariffs. Well, I don't know if you've heard, but we've got tariffs now! Comparing having any tariff to having your house burned down is pretending that it's not possible just to have your barn burned down. Or to have a window painted over. Or to have to trim the branches on your trees. Which ask is going to push you to the point where you give up your coffee industry? Nah, let's pretend not to know that all of this can be quantified, and that Hungary has any real leverage over the US on its own. If the US is asking too much from Hungary, Hungary can go to China or India - but China or India can ask for anything marginally less than what the US asked for, or can even agree with the US to ask for exactly what the US asked for. And Europe has cut itself off from Russian resources for ideological reasons, so it can't even take advantage of the fact that Russia's market for its resources is somewhat limited. He's suffering from applause addiction. China can do what they want because they are not a dependency of the US. Europe is. If anything, with all of his invective about Orban (because Orban is ideologically unpleasant), Hungary is in a better position than Europe as a whole because the Orban government doesn't have the self-destructive Russophobia that the rest of Europe does. Hungary can choose at any time whether to be in Europe or to rely on Russia, and China. That's more leverage than Europe has.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

wakawaka28 9mo ago

Small countries would be hurt worse than the US if they choose to ignore US IP law. The US has far more IP than they do, and represents most of their market, and possesses unique capabilities to retaliate. Tearing down IP law would also hurt consumers of IP because authors and artists would have limited means to get paid. It's a losing proposition on four fronts.