The Economist is very much part of the establishment, whoever they are owned by. It is not surprising that they would want to play down any idea that the UK is less “democratic”. Furthermore, The Economist is one of the main mouthpieces of British capitalism, and so their definition of “democracy” is going to be very much of the liberal, capital-friendly kind, which is not completely incompatible with some authoritarian tendencies.
The ranking isn’t published by the newspaper - it’s by the research and insights B2B company of the overall group. Regardless of what assumptions you have about the newspaper (elite, yes, but I’m unclear on why you think fierce liberalism is likely to mean they don’t really value democracy), the B2B unit sells data - they’re as likely to skew this ranking as they are at which countries are better at rail infrastructure. Perhaps their definition of democracy is indeed flawed though - no need to speculate, go read their methodology.
But the parent point was that no British media could be critical of government policy. Picking an example that isn’t, on one area, doesn’t prove their point.
[Edit] Granted though, the bbc isn’t merciless - that’s more the newspapers
> If you think Britain and Russia or China are equivalent in terms of government overreach, you need to find new sources of information.
Uh... you are making his point. People from way more authoritarian countries don't necessarily feel like they are living in an authoritarian country. Therefore whether or not it "feels" like you are living in one isn't a reliable measure.
Trivially true I suppose, but it doesn’t make my point irrelevant - do you think Britain is equivalent to China and Russia? If everyone does but us then yes my goodness they’ve done a good job controlling us, but that seems far fetched.
They’re talking about British hate speech laws. They think other countries have universal free speech and they absolutely do not, but for some reason they think Britain goes too far. Although “think” is probably too generous - they’re parroting talking points.
There's a well known theory on this exact concept! The Medium is the Message. Or, the very act of defacing a public building is meant to sledge-hammer the artist's work into the viewer's consciousness. Compared to say, some quiet exhibit most people would never encounter.
You are not supposed to get any attention and you are not supposed to have any say in how the city and the world looks. If you buy the building you still don't get to paint.
>Renegade urban graffiti artist Banksy is clearly a guffhead of massive proportions, yet he's often feted as a genius straddling the bleeding edge of now. Why? Because his work looks dazzlingly clever to idiots. And apparently that'll do.
- Creator of Black Mirror, 5 years before series premiere
Im familiar with who he is. At the time his claim to fame was coming up with Nathan Barley, which is why I suspected there was more than a little jealousy there.
He got more famous and acclaimed since black mirror.
I get the jealously part, but the highbrow part seems off to me. Brooker has always shown much more interest in distinctly lowbrow art forms such as video games. I don't think he is sneering at Banksy because he thinks we should be looking at the paintings of the Old Masters instead.
Right but he knows guardian readers think that and he's pandering to their snobbery with his comments about Banksy rolling around in the pop culture mud.
At the same time it's painfully obvious it riled him up being a more obscure and less famous equivalent of banksy.
A lot of engineers find it difficult to conceive of product and design (and marketing, and management…) as actual skilled work. It’s all con artistry orbiting engineering.
Skills frameworks are great. Your mentee can rate themselves at different levels across different competencies. You can have a discussion about where you see them differently on any areas. You can agree, based on your experience and their ambitions, on what growth areas they ought to focus on in the coming months /year etc. The structure really helps, as does putting it partly on them. People are often not bad at rating themselves if there are clear skill level descriptions.
It’s unpopular because it’s a bad argument. It’s not theft because you don’t take anything away. You just create a copy and don’t pay for it, but that’s not theft.
Is it even a theft if I watch publically available unlocked IPTV streams? I mean if they don't want people without paid access to watch them they should protect them with unique logins/passwords and this is valid for whatever IPTV provider (not specific to channels themselves).
It might not be theft but it's not nothing either. Manslaughter isn't murder but someone still died. Copying might not be theft but you're still taking something you didn't pay for.
But it's not piracy either. People just want to make the crime sound worse then "infringement" Might as well call it "software rape" as that crime is closer to what is being done than than theft or piracy.
It is an infringement on one's right to control the reproduction and distribution of their intellectual property.
This right is enforced by the authority that grants it. Viewing, listening, or otherwise 'consuming' this IP is not and cannot be an infringement on these rights. Those who provide are responsible.
If a country does not grant or enforce this right (or on behalf of others) then there is no infringment possible in that jurisdiction. cf. China or Russia.
Moral arguments beyond that are your own and should be clearly segregated from the law. Murder is, almost universally, both criminal and wrong. "Piracy" requires more attention to detail in order to have productive conversations.
A spy steals secrets. Credit can be stolen from you by your boss. Your competitor steals your ideas. In colloquial usage, theft is the act of stealing. The legal term is copyright infringement.
When you "steal" a secret, it's not longer a secret. When you "steal" credit, the original thinker no longer gets credit. In both cases, the thing itself was destroyed: in the former, the secret is no longer a secret at all and in the latter the boss will no longer be considered the mastermind behind the idea. When you "pirate" something the original copy remains and the creator retains it and the rights to sell copies of it and will still benefit from selling copies. It's not theft.
Also, the economist is majority foreign owned, so try doing more than 1 second of research, or be more civil, or ideally both.
reply