5 ms·
Why do I feel like some of the EFF articles are distinctly one-sided when it comes to certain topics? For example what about illegal government expropriation or
by hurin 12y ago
Why do I feel like some of the EFF articles are distinctly one-sided when it comes to certain topics? For example what about illegal government expropriation or interest-based selective-quasi-legal interference in economic affairs (i.e. Yukos) - or rampant ignorance of patent and copyright laws (various Chinese Manufacturers).
Unfortunately when an issue is presented entirely black and white as:
confer expansive powers on corporations and undermine democratic rules
we cannot let such a secretive, corporate-driven agency to pass digital regulations in secret.
etc. etc.
It's hard to come away with any real understanding of the issues at hand.
Disclaimer: I am longtime supporter and EFF member.
- snowwrestler 12y agoI have a similar feeling, but I think the answer is that the EFF is a one-sided organization--their mission is to form opinions on these topics and fight for what they think is right. I think of them as an "advocacy" nonprofit, and there are plenty of those on the other side as well, trying to make their case against things like government expropriation. The balanced view, to the extent it can exist, would be somewhere between the two sides; each listener synthesizes their own balance point, I guess.
- Confusion 12y agoLaws/treaties should not be solely judged based on how they deal with excesses. The point is that the impact on ordinary countries doing ordinary things is extraordinarily large. Looking only at excesses is similar to a "think of the children" or "but TERRORISM!" argument. Besides, Russia and China aren't going to sign the TPP anyway, so those excesses are actually completely irrelevant to the effect this treaty would actually have.