[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[nebula8804]

As much as I tire of Doctorow's style, I feel you have a level of pessimism that would prevent anyone from trying anything innovative.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you have a level of pessimism that would prevent anyone from trying anything innovative

Dead wrong. I’m a risk taker. I wanted to see Doctorow’s argument because I respect him and would love if the numbers allowed for constraining Washington.

Dismissing a stupid proposal for being wrong isn’t rejecting solutions in general. In this case, it’s pointing out that Europe escalating a trade war for copyright reform doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you’re rallying folks to that cause.

[saubeidl]

I think it's ridiculous framing to call this Europe escalating.

The US has been escalating non-stop for a year. This would be Europe responding for once. Constraining Washington is in their interest as Washington is a malign actor now.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's ridiculous framing to call this Europe escalating

Shredding a trade agreement outright is absolutely an escalation relative to tariffs. It’s both more comprehensive and includes raising tariffs.

> The US has been escalating non-stop for a year. This would be Europe responding for once

Sure. By escalating.

> Constraining Washington is in their interest

Agree. But there are smart and stupid ways to do it. It’s in America’s interest to constrain China. Nuking its own oil production to raise oil prices, as an extreme example, would be a stupid way to do it. Ends not justifying the means is more than just a moral argument.

[saubeidl]

The tariffs already constitute shredding the trade agreement. This again is dishonest framing. There's no trade agreement as soon as one side breaks it. The side to break it wasn't the EU.

[bigbadfeline]

The parent of your comment is only one of the many here who go by the following scheme:

"WE can dishonor any part of any agreement but YOU have to fulfill all of your obligations according to our interpretation and under our direction... OR ELSE"

I don't know if these are real people or bots but I pity them for their lack of basic reasoning abilities.

Once one side starts removing obligations from themselves they will never stop, especially if the other side keeps being in compliance, it's just an incredible opportunity to corner the compliant side and drain it completely... and then it'll experience the "OR ELSE" part anyway but at the most damaging time and in its worst form.

There's only one choice when an agreement is broken - act as if it never existed while positioning yourself for a fair renegotiation.

[rolymath]

It seemed like you rejected the proposal before you knew what it was, and then looked for reasons to justify your decision.

[alephnerd]

Yep, but I think Cory truly believes this stuff deep down.

[pessimizer]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

I think they meant he feels like saying “fuck you,” even if it burns down the world around him. That’s a real human impulse. But it’s important to distinguish folks who want to watch the world burn from those floating serious solutions.

[jrflowers]

He seems pretty emphatic that everything is burning and that we are watching it burn, right now, because it is on fire, presently. Is it your interpretation that Doctorow is a fan of this administration’s actions and wants them to continue? Or that he is advocating for a sort of… double fire? Like lighting fire on fire?

Is there a physical world analogy for what you’re describing in terms of burning/not burning?

[saubeidl]

Trump threatened an extra 10% tariffs on countries that don't think the US should be taking over Greenland. Who knows what dumb reason he'll come up with next?

Under this regime, the US is eventually going to develop into something similar to Japan under Sakoku - a nonfactor in international trade, due to a self-imposed embargo.

Of course it'll hurt former US trade partners (and the US itself even more!). But it's coming either way, whether we suck up to Americans or not. With that in mind, we might as well just do what we want since the US is for some reason voluntarily giving up power over us.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Trump threatened an extra 10% tariffs on countries that don't think the US should be taking over Greenland

And that would be a good reason for tearing up a FTA.

It would cost Europeans more, financially, than the tariffs. Probably tip the EU into a recession without significant deficit spending and ECB intervention. But I think it’s the sort of thing that’s geostrategically worth threatening if your population and political structure lets you credibly do so.

(Note: shredding trade deals to the point that IP stops mattering != ratifying the new thing.)

[alephnerd]

Also having individual EU member states publicly announcing and committing to ratifying the Eu-Canada CETA within a 1 year time frame like they did for the EU-India FTA would be a significant message that also doesn't require shooting oneself in the foot.

States within the EU may also have to make peace with the need to expanding ties with regional powers like Israel, KSA, UAE, Egypt, etc in a strategic instead of tactical framework.

IK the latter is in the pipeline, the former less so due to electoral risks.

[jrflowers]

> serious for playing to his base. Got it. Disappointing coming from him. But I guess we all have to tend to our power.

What “power” does this blogger/sci-fi writer have? Who is “his base”? What responsibility to affect meaningful trade regulation did he abdicate when he said a thing you didn’t agree with?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Who is “his base”?

Folks whose pet issue is IP reform, presumably. If that’s your drum, beat it. But it’s good context for anyone tuning in that it’s going to be your beat.

> What responsibility to affect meaningful trade regulation did he abdicate

What are you talking about? Where was this responsibility suggested?

All I did was point out hyperbole for what it is. Doctorow is speaking metaphorically. He isn’t literally suggesting tearing up trade agreements over IP because he isn’t an idiot.