also does Thor seriously think that the game companies won’t advocate for their case to the EU legislature once the initiative is raised into parliament??? Does he think that direct democracy exists like that at this very moment? The law is just enshrined from the initiative itself immediately? no process, no consultation, no bureaucracy, nothing??? Thor. Buddy. I’m giving you all the respect I can physically muster and am going to put aside your blatant conflict of interest and assume you genuinely believe this and genuinely worry outside of your own benefit here—are you fucking five years old? Do you have any idea of how government works? Do you pay attention to anything at all?
For someone who is supposedly a fierce union advocate, this tantrum betrays a toddler’s understanding of how actual corporate-subject bargaining works. It is the responsibility of the party adversarial to the status quo to present a radical view of change that puts the entrenched entity on the backfoot.
If you were to do what Thor says and present an ironed-out compromise plan as your first card, you’re sacrificing your queen to capture an undeveloped pawn. You absolutely do not know ball. They’ll kill you. What about the past three decades of Democratic Party strategy has convinced you that compromising at the start is a way to affect change??? You create the conditions for a compromise plan by getting those benefiting from a lack of change worried that they’ll face significant material consequences that would make their current mode of profit unsustainable, and then you negotiate with their brokers.
This is the same fucking repulsive logic that has radlibs scolding people for using their vote as a bargaining chip and not pledging fealty immediately to the Nothing Will Fundamentally Change Train after the Great Vibe Shift. You don’t get anything from capitalists and power brokers unless they’re scared. You have to scare them.
I generally enjoy Thor’s content but I was about to go insane watching his videos on this. The examples only work if you presume that this proposal would somehow replace both copyright and cyber crime legislation, it’s fucking insane. And like you said, as if this wouldn’t be challenged and changed when it actually becomes some kind of legislation proposition. You don’t start a bargain by cutting back your own demands, it’s so goddam stupid.
if you move your goal to the half, the midfield shifts to their fourth. it's not hard to grasp. either he doesn't see this as a negotiation (in which case he has a middle-school understanding of civics and should get the fuck off his high horse about it) or he's intentionally fearmongering to snuff out the demand for change (in which case he's a bad actor and is acting on his conflict of interest and thus loses every ounce of credibility he's mustered as a sort-of everyman game dev)
either he doesn't see this as a negotiation (in which case he has a middle-school understanding of civics and should get the fuck off his high horse about it)
He doesn't even understand the most basic facts about the legal system in question - he was going on about "b-but what if it sets a bad precedent"... the EU does not use fucking common law (completely, now that the Brits are out). They don't give a shit about precedents (well, at least they give less of a shit than a common law system would)!
It is the responsibility of the party adversarial to the status quo to present a radical view of change that puts the entrenched entity on the backfoot.
If you were to do what Thor says and present an ironed-out compromise plan as your first card, you’re sacrificing your queen to capture an undeveloped pawn. You absolutely do not know ball. They’ll kill you.
I admittedly have no personal experience with these kinds of negotiations, but this is something that worried me about Ross' recent Q&A video. I think the intention was to assuage people that think the proposal is too extreme (misguided, IMO, since literally any regulation is viewed as extreme by his real opponents), but he gave his personal minimum non-negotiables that would be compromises from the currently stated position. He qualified this by saying that it's his own personal views and doesn't reflect the views of the movement as a whole, but surely you've got to show a united front on this, right? My immediate thought was that the EU software association negotiators would be kicking their lips, since that should establishing a ceiling for what they'd accept and they'd obviously go down from there.
also does Thor seriously think that the game companies won’t advocate for their case to the EU legislature once the initiative is raised into parliament??? Does he think that direct democracy exists like that at this very moment? The law is just enshrined from the initiative itself immediately? no process, no consultation, no bureaucracy, nothing??? Thor. Buddy. I’m giving you all the respect I can physically muster and am going to put aside your blatant conflict of interest and assume you genuinely believe this and genuinely worry outside of your own benefit here—are you fucking five years old? Do you have any idea of how government works? Do you pay attention to anything at all?
For someone who is supposedly a fierce union advocate, this tantrum betrays a toddler’s understanding of how actual corporate-subject bargaining works. It is the responsibility of the party adversarial to the status quo to present a radical view of change that puts the entrenched entity on the backfoot.
If you were to do what Thor says and present an ironed-out compromise plan as your first card, you’re sacrificing your queen to capture an undeveloped pawn. You absolutely do not know ball. They’ll kill you. What about the past three decades of Democratic Party strategy has convinced you that compromising at the start is a way to affect change??? You create the conditions for a compromise plan by getting those benefiting from a lack of change worried that they’ll face significant material consequences that would make their current mode of profit unsustainable, and then you negotiate with their brokers.
This is the same fucking repulsive logic that has radlibs scolding people for using their vote as a bargaining chip and not pledging fealty immediately to the Nothing Will Fundamentally Change Train after the Great Vibe Shift. You don’t get anything from capitalists and power brokers unless they’re scared. You have to scare them.
I generally enjoy Thor’s content but I was about to go insane watching his videos on this. The examples only work if you presume that this proposal would somehow replace both copyright and cyber crime legislation, it’s fucking insane. And like you said, as if this wouldn’t be challenged and changed when it actually becomes some kind of legislation proposition. You don’t start a bargain by cutting back your own demands, it’s so goddam stupid.
if you move your goal to the half, the midfield shifts to their fourth. it's not hard to grasp. either he doesn't see this as a negotiation (in which case he has a middle-school understanding of civics and should get the fuck off his high horse about it) or he's intentionally fearmongering to snuff out the demand for change (in which case he's a bad actor and is acting on his conflict of interest and thus loses every ounce of credibility he's mustered as a sort-of everyman game dev)
He doesn't even understand the most basic facts about the legal system in question - he was going on about "b-but what if it sets a bad precedent"... the EU does not use fucking common law (completely, now that the Brits are out). They don't give a shit about precedents (well, at least they give less of a shit than a common law system would)!
I admittedly have no personal experience with these kinds of negotiations, but this is something that worried me about Ross' recent Q&A video. I think the intention was to assuage people that think the proposal is too extreme (misguided, IMO, since literally any regulation is viewed as extreme by his real opponents), but he gave his personal minimum non-negotiables that would be compromises from the currently stated position. He qualified this by saying that it's his own personal views and doesn't reflect the views of the movement as a whole, but surely you've got to show a united front on this, right? My immediate thought was that the EU software association negotiators would be kicking their lips, since that should establishing a ceiling for what they'd accept and they'd obviously go down from there.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: