4 ms·

Middle powers should heed Cory Doctorow's advice [0] and start offering legal protection in their jurisdictions for precisely this type of projects. America is

by negura 2mo ago

Middle powers should heed Cory Doctorow's advice [0] and start offering legal protection in their jurisdictions for precisely this type of projects. America is a hostile nation, who has sought to align everyone with its interests, under a false pretense of mutual benefit, while instead its tech sector has caused much harm at a global scale. America is now doubling down on value extraction, at an obvious expense to everyone else. Middle powers should not be granting to America any goodwill whatsoever. There is nothing in it for them anymore, except irresponsible reliance on a bad faith actor. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509019

jambalaya8 2mo ago
All due respect, but how would anyone survive, no less find a way to make anything like the average income of any of us on HN, in a world that made not just some 'patents' free but removed property and invention such as the extremities Doctorow's fiction often espouses? America is sorta known for pretense of mutual benefit. We sorta fumbled things after we, to put it bluntly, nuked the Japanese twice. Don't get me wrong, if you read my comments elsewhere you will see how I feel about people/companies claiming swathes of things for themselves too. Everyone seems to think they either deserve more or they fall for believing people are inherently willing to remunerate fairly for what they use... Def. not my experience, at all... like what if people were all just assuming since your ideas exist, they were for sale or free, or 'offering' things you dont want or arent getting in return...? what if you dont want what they do with it in the first place? what if (heh) you just don't like the end user and you know they will irk you with it? Doctorow is the furthest from a fair or good example, imho.
- wredcoll 2mo ago
  > We sorta fumbled things after we, to put it bluntly, nuked the Japanese twice What?
  - NateEag 2mo ago
    I believe OP is saying that the US has not been reliably sane in its public policy since ending WW II via nuclear warfare. I don't know if I agree with the claim overall, but I certainly think nuking civilian populations was an execrable choice (even if the official targets were technically military ones).
    - wredcoll 2mo ago
      They were already being firebombed to death by "regular" bombs and/or starving to death from various blockades. Why single out those attacks?
      - forestrywat 2mo ago
        Why single out the only two instances of nuclear weapons being used in anger in the entire history of their existence? Why single out the single largest escalation in force in the world's history? Why single out the two largest single bombs ever deployed against an enemy? Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings...
        defrost 2mo ago
        The difference being that it cost a lot more to destroy those two Japanese cities alone than it did in total to destroy 72 other Japanese cities to the same degree. Later on, that type of weapon became cheaper and several thousands were created and became the basis for a long window of relative peace.
        stavros 2mo ago
        Strictly speaking, the first city cost a whole lot of money, the second was basically free, through the magic of not amortizing the cost of R&D to win an online argument.
        2mo ago
- negura 2mo ago
  > find a way to make anything like the average income of any of us on HN a) This is not about trying to protect the incomes of people working in Big Tech b) In his talk Doctorow gives examples of business opportunities that are actually being repressed by the laws against reverse engineering
  - mrngld 2mo ago
    It's not just about big tech. It's about what enables highly productive societies in general. Without IP, I suppose everyone could share to some limited extent what is already known, but why would anyone ever sink big dollars or time into coming up with something new that'd immediately get stolen by people who did nothing to contribute to it? Indeed, it's part of the problem with manufacturing in the West, there's no robust enforcement of IP with China due to political sensitivities so manufacturers have to have strategies to protect themselves from the fact that if they release a new product they've got maybe 90 days before a copycat hits the market. I can't help but wonder how much stronger the core of the EU economy would be with actual robust management of their trade relationship with China. The US too but I think the EU is suffering a bit more in real time. No doubt it makes Doctorow the star of certain types of intellectual circles but the theories have never made a people or country actually well off and never will. But, things don't have to work in the real world to be popular, or even to become policy.
    - jambalaya8 2mo ago
      Eh the dude who played Minecraft that named himself after that one Doctorow story couldn't even survive the first year of COVID.
- specialist 2mo ago
  For a very brief window of time, USA did a little bit more good than bad. Those of us wanting to believe USA was more better than not have struggled to recalibate our beliefs.
- armchairhacker 2mo ago
  Maybe in the past, but who in the present who isn’t already rich is or would have the income hurt by eliminating IP laws? Keep in mind that most indie projects make barely any money, most of those that do are free + ads or Patreon, any software not under expensive DRM is easy to pirate, and AI companies pirate to train LLMs. > what if you dont want what they do with it in the first place? what if (heh) you just don't like the end user and you know they will irk you with it? What if you don’t like what somebody does with “your” ideas in their own personal bubble? Why care? Try to ignore them. I’d rather that than have somebody restrict what I can do with whatever ideas they claim are theirs.
  - jambalaya8 2mo ago
    cool. as long as we are clear people are free to commit mass genocide and i dunno peel peoples' skin back or i dunno, something out of a robin wiliams scifi movie or phosphorus bombing or something with what you have invented. just trying to get some clarity on the concept of 'belongings' and property law.
zanellato19 2mo ago
Brazil is trying that and getting a bad look from the USA. Can you imagine a smaller nation doing the same? What would the USA do?
- Gigachad 2mo ago
  The US is fighting wars with everyone on everything at the same time. They don't have the resources to do anything about it. Every country will develop their own independent payment networks. China was right to block US tech companies to promote their own, most large and capable countries will do the same over time.
  - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
    I wouldn't cite China as the example. If they had their way, every country would have its own firewall just like them, giving them significant control over information flow to their citizens. It works very well. That's why they have been pushing "internet sovereignty" for years.
    - Gigachad 2mo ago
      Meanwhile the US who currently has their way will block European judges from using banks, credit cards and all online services after they investigate Israel for war crimes.
      - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
        The direction the US is going under Trump is absolutely reprehensible. But we're talking about _internet freedom_ here, and China has none of it. Just because Trump is an *hole doesn't mean we should embrace China's view of "freedom".
    - pbhjpbhj 2mo ago
      Whilst USA has the same control over information flow, but their sites (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) extend across the whole World. USA have used media projection (heh!) for decades to extend their soft powers.
knowaveragejoe 2mo ago
If even a few of the people freaking out here just recreated or rehosted nitter elsewhere out of their reach, we probably wouldn't have this problem. Be the change you wish to see
rootsu 2mo ago
>America is a hostile nation, who has sought to align everyone with its interests, under a false pretense of mutual benefit, while instead its tech sector has caused much harm at a global scale. America is now doubling down on value extraction, at an obvious expense to everyone else. In India, recently, a bill was passed that can permit banks and the government to add charges on UPI transactions. UPI is one of the biggest digital payment systems in the world, and it was free until now. Insider information from multiple news sources suggests that this was done because of pressure from the US.
- mrngld 2mo ago
  Sounds bogus, there's free payment services in the US as well, that's nothing special. What makes more sense in the India context is low value of volume per customer where even the minimal operating costs are difficult to cover. I say that from some amount of experience in the micro-finance world, where even money provided at zero actual interest in terms of the loaned money itself still ended up having to have somewhat painful interest rates just to cover true costs in low income countries.
  - sarthaksingh99 2mo ago
    I do not know a single free payment service in the US outside Zelle and that is not really comparable to India's UPI. Are you saying that there are services in the US that I can use to accept payments as easily as a credit card with no fees on me as a merchant? UPI costs about $500 million per year to the Indian government while having a transaction volume of $3.4 trillion per year. That is < 0.001 % of the transaction volume. I am not going to claim there is no subsidization to the cost to the government by the banks as they get to keep control over the flow of money and that might change in the future but for now the costs to the government vs benefit to the Indian economy is fairly clear to me. Just the 18% GST returns on the 2.5% extra the merchants would receive when a user pays with UPI over VISA would more than make up for the cost to the government. Not to mention all the cash income that was impossible to track before is now tracked under UPI.
yubblegum 2mo ago
Most middle powers have robust censorship regimes. As for America being a unique "hostile" phenomena in geopolitics, I believe you are either purveyour or a victim of propaganda. > its tech sector has caused much harm at a global scale Like what exactly? Whatever harm US (software) tech has dished out, it has also dished out domestically. What is your nationality and what are your nation's contributions to the rest of the world?
- negura 2mo ago
  > Whatever harm US (software) tech has dished out, it has also dished out domestically. Are you saying that, because Big Tech is harming the mental health of American children, this is supposed to redeem the situation somehow? Or are you saying it contradicts the observation that US has "caused harm at a global scale"? There is no contradiction. > What is your nationality and what are your nation's contributions to the rest of the world? Maybe this power posturing would have worked 20 years ago, before America's enshittification showed who its "contributions" were ultimately designed to benefit. I don't disagree that it's urgent for middle powers to contribute to the world. I believe ending their protection of America's value-extracting power is now a great way to do exactly that.

by negura 2mo ago

jambalaya8 2mo ago

All due respect, but how would anyone survive, no less find a way to make anything like the average income of any of us on HN, in a world that made not just some 'patents' free but removed property and invention such as the extremities Doctorow's fiction often espouses? America is sorta known for pretense of mutual benefit. We sorta fumbled things after we, to put it bluntly, nuked the Japanese twice. Don't get me wrong, if you read my comments elsewhere you will see how I feel about people/companies claiming swathes of things for themselves too. Everyone seems to think they either deserve more or they fall for believing people are inherently willing to remunerate fairly for what they use... Def. not my experience, at all... like what if people were all just assuming since your ideas exist, they were for sale or free, or 'offering' things you dont want or arent getting in return...? what if you dont want what they do with it in the first place? what if (heh) you just don't like the end user and you know they will irk you with it? Doctorow is the furthest from a fair or good example, imho.

wredcoll 2mo ago
> We sorta fumbled things after we, to put it bluntly, nuked the Japanese twice What?
- NateEag 2mo ago
  I believe OP is saying that the US has not been reliably sane in its public policy since ending WW II via nuclear warfare. I don't know if I agree with the claim overall, but I certainly think nuking civilian populations was an execrable choice (even if the official targets were technically military ones).
  - wredcoll 2mo ago
    They were already being firebombed to death by "regular" bombs and/or starving to death from various blockades. Why single out those attacks?
    - forestrywat 2mo ago
      Why single out the only two instances of nuclear weapons being used in anger in the entire history of their existence? Why single out the single largest escalation in force in the world's history? Why single out the two largest single bombs ever deployed against an enemy? Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings...
      - defrost 2mo ago
        The difference being that it cost a lot more to destroy those two Japanese cities alone than it did in total to destroy 72 other Japanese cities to the same degree. Later on, that type of weapon became cheaper and several thousands were created and became the basis for a long window of relative peace.
        stavros 2mo ago
        Strictly speaking, the first city cost a whole lot of money, the second was basically free, through the magic of not amortizing the cost of R&D to win an online argument.
        2mo ago
negura 2mo ago
> find a way to make anything like the average income of any of us on HN a) This is not about trying to protect the incomes of people working in Big Tech b) In his talk Doctorow gives examples of business opportunities that are actually being repressed by the laws against reverse engineering
- mrngld 2mo ago
  It's not just about big tech. It's about what enables highly productive societies in general. Without IP, I suppose everyone could share to some limited extent what is already known, but why would anyone ever sink big dollars or time into coming up with something new that'd immediately get stolen by people who did nothing to contribute to it? Indeed, it's part of the problem with manufacturing in the West, there's no robust enforcement of IP with China due to political sensitivities so manufacturers have to have strategies to protect themselves from the fact that if they release a new product they've got maybe 90 days before a copycat hits the market. I can't help but wonder how much stronger the core of the EU economy would be with actual robust management of their trade relationship with China. The US too but I think the EU is suffering a bit more in real time. No doubt it makes Doctorow the star of certain types of intellectual circles but the theories have never made a people or country actually well off and never will. But, things don't have to work in the real world to be popular, or even to become policy.
  - jambalaya8 2mo ago
    Eh the dude who played Minecraft that named himself after that one Doctorow story couldn't even survive the first year of COVID.
specialist 2mo ago
For a very brief window of time, USA did a little bit more good than bad. Those of us wanting to believe USA was more better than not have struggled to recalibate our beliefs.
armchairhacker 2mo ago
Maybe in the past, but who in the present who isn’t already rich is or would have the income hurt by eliminating IP laws? Keep in mind that most indie projects make barely any money, most of those that do are free + ads or Patreon, any software not under expensive DRM is easy to pirate, and AI companies pirate to train LLMs. > what if you dont want what they do with it in the first place? what if (heh) you just don't like the end user and you know they will irk you with it? What if you don’t like what somebody does with “your” ideas in their own personal bubble? Why care? Try to ignore them. I’d rather that than have somebody restrict what I can do with whatever ideas they claim are theirs.
- jambalaya8 2mo ago
  cool. as long as we are clear people are free to commit mass genocide and i dunno peel peoples' skin back or i dunno, something out of a robin wiliams scifi movie or phosphorus bombing or something with what you have invented. just trying to get some clarity on the concept of 'belongings' and property law.

zanellato19 2mo ago

Brazil is trying that and getting a bad look from the USA. Can you imagine a smaller nation doing the same? What would the USA do?

Gigachad 2mo ago
The US is fighting wars with everyone on everything at the same time. They don't have the resources to do anything about it. Every country will develop their own independent payment networks. China was right to block US tech companies to promote their own, most large and capable countries will do the same over time.
- insane_dreamer 2mo ago
  I wouldn't cite China as the example. If they had their way, every country would have its own firewall just like them, giving them significant control over information flow to their citizens. It works very well. That's why they have been pushing "internet sovereignty" for years.
  - Gigachad 2mo ago
    Meanwhile the US who currently has their way will block European judges from using banks, credit cards and all online services after they investigate Israel for war crimes.
    - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
      The direction the US is going under Trump is absolutely reprehensible. But we're talking about _internet freedom_ here, and China has none of it. Just because Trump is an *hole doesn't mean we should embrace China's view of "freedom".
  - pbhjpbhj 2mo ago
    Whilst USA has the same control over information flow, but their sites (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) extend across the whole World. USA have used media projection (heh!) for decades to extend their soft powers.

knowaveragejoe 2mo ago

If even a few of the people freaking out here just recreated or rehosted nitter elsewhere out of their reach, we probably wouldn't have this problem. Be the change you wish to see

rootsu 2mo ago

>America is a hostile nation, who has sought to align everyone with its interests, under a false pretense of mutual benefit, while instead its tech sector has caused much harm at a global scale. America is now doubling down on value extraction, at an obvious expense to everyone else. In India, recently, a bill was passed that can permit banks and the government to add charges on UPI transactions. UPI is one of the biggest digital payment systems in the world, and it was free until now. Insider information from multiple news sources suggests that this was done because of pressure from the US.

mrngld 2mo ago
Sounds bogus, there's free payment services in the US as well, that's nothing special. What makes more sense in the India context is low value of volume per customer where even the minimal operating costs are difficult to cover. I say that from some amount of experience in the micro-finance world, where even money provided at zero actual interest in terms of the loaned money itself still ended up having to have somewhat painful interest rates just to cover true costs in low income countries.
- sarthaksingh99 2mo ago
  I do not know a single free payment service in the US outside Zelle and that is not really comparable to India's UPI. Are you saying that there are services in the US that I can use to accept payments as easily as a credit card with no fees on me as a merchant? UPI costs about $500 million per year to the Indian government while having a transaction volume of $3.4 trillion per year. That is < 0.001 % of the transaction volume. I am not going to claim there is no subsidization to the cost to the government by the banks as they get to keep control over the flow of money and that might change in the future but for now the costs to the government vs benefit to the Indian economy is fairly clear to me. Just the 18% GST returns on the 2.5% extra the merchants would receive when a user pays with UPI over VISA would more than make up for the cost to the government. Not to mention all the cash income that was impossible to track before is now tracked under UPI.

yubblegum 2mo ago

Most middle powers have robust censorship regimes. As for America being a unique "hostile" phenomena in geopolitics, I believe you are either purveyour or a victim of propaganda. > its tech sector has caused much harm at a global scale Like what exactly? Whatever harm US (software) tech has dished out, it has also dished out domestically. What is your nationality and what are your nation's contributions to the rest of the world?

negura 2mo ago
> Whatever harm US (software) tech has dished out, it has also dished out domestically. Are you saying that, because Big Tech is harming the mental health of American children, this is supposed to redeem the situation somehow? Or are you saying it contradicts the observation that US has "caused harm at a global scale"? There is no contradiction. > What is your nationality and what are your nation's contributions to the rest of the world? Maybe this power posturing would have worked 20 years ago, before America's enshittification showed who its "contributions" were ultimately designed to benefit. I don't disagree that it's urgent for middle powers to contribute to the world. I believe ending their protection of America's value-extracting power is now a great way to do exactly that.