5 ms·
This isn't an endorsement, if anything it's just positive coverage of this agreement. Take your EFF fear-mongering back to when this was posted yesterday.
by joliv 13y ago
This isn't an endorsement, if anything it's just positive coverage of this agreement. Take your EFF fear-mongering back to when this was posted yesterday.
- ash 13y ago> it's just positive coverage of this agreement As the article mentions, it's very likely that New York Times hasn't seen the agreement. Otherwise they could just leak it to the public. So what do they endorse?
- snowwrestler 13y agoThe concept of a trade agreement with these nations. However one might feel about IP enforcement, reducing tariffs and aligning similar but slightly different regulations can help economic growth in all the nations.
- Roboprog 13y agoWhatever their corporate masters tell them to, of course.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoWhen is positive coverage in the NY Times not a form of public approval?
- ryguytilidie 13y agoPositive coverage of the secret agreement they haven't actually read? Yeah, you're right. Top class journalism, no problem here. Glad you were able to make the quick transition from completely ridiculous view to mocking others though. It's a real gift that we have people like yourself on the internet.
- vidarh 13y agoThe naivete of trying to interpret that kind of positive coverage rather than lengthy digging into why there's this kind of extensive secrecy surrounding a trade agreement that supposedly might justify this kind of positive treatment as anything but an endorsement is rather sad.