Donald Trump Accuses Canada of 'Cheating' Amid Tariff War
The president complained that Canadian dairy tariffs on imports outside of an allowed quota were "unfair."
You're viewing a single thread.
Not what he's talking about. He's still lying and whining, but not saying what you (or the headline) imply he's saying.
He's saying that the pre-existing tariffs on out of quota dairy products are "cheating US farmers". Which is not true. The body of the article explains this correctly and in good detail, but the headline sucks and nobody ever reads past the headline because we all have brain rot as a species.
I wonder if a good Fedi alternative to Reddit would do something like force the link to be previewed in full or opened before getting to respond to the aggregation. Or maybe all social media was a mistake and none of it should exist, I don't know.
And let me be clear, I'm not attacking you here, this is a sytemic issue. Every human is subject to these patterns. Blame our collective wetware.
I don’t read past headlines because news websites are cluttered with ads and mandatory requests of my data and are basically unreadable most of the times.
The even shorter version:
Canada is following the trade deal that Trump signed into law in 2018, as it pertains to what Trump is confusedly crying about.
Part of that deal is that if the US exports too much dairy products to Canada, beyond an agreed upon volume, a higher tariff rate kicks in for that excess.
This isn't even happening, because the US has not exceeded that export limit.
...
So... if by 'cheating', Trump means that the deal is being broken... no, it isn't.
If by 'cheating', Trump means that the terms of the deal are fundamentally unfair ... it was Trump's fucking deal after he blew up NAFTA! ... so Trump is then saying his own trade deal is fundamentally unfair to America, despite massively hyping it up as awesome during his first term.
He consistently attempts to renegotiate deals when he's in a worse position than when the original deal occurred. He's the sort of idiot that thinks position is posturing, lying, and cheating and not the reality of trust, what you can and will do for them, and what you can and will do to them.
Yep.
He's a corrupt, criminal bully.
His idea of negotiation is bullying.
If the headline is a piece of shit, I'm not reading the damned article.
Fuck capitalism for ruining everything, and I'm not supporting any journals that clickbait. Most of it is not worth it, and the few that do are not offsetting the risk.
I would get behind "click through before vote"
Seems like it has potential for abuse, though, aka forcibly driving traffic. It can be defeat-able though, it’s just meant to deter lazy human impulses.
I'll make a complementary argument below in a sec, but "enforcing driving traffic" seems like a feature, not a bug.
For how testy people get about crawling for copyrigted stuff for things like AI, everybody seems super chill about search engines and aggregators ripping off content at industrial scales with zero repercussions.
Tbh, I'd be less testy about bots scraping my sites for AI input IF they respected my robots.txt file and didn't slam the server. They're just rude and I don't like it. Sometimes they're so rude it's effectively a DOS attack.
Tbh, my sites exist to get information out there and I don't care if someone mirrors my sites, as long as the information is still accurate.
I mean, that's great and you're well within your rights, but that's not what people generally say when they express outrage about AI scraping. People straight up call it theft very often and seem to consider using online content for training is the equivalent of copying or distributing it.
Which stands out to me because that was not what happened when the EU decided that Google News was effectively piracy after a whole bunch of news outlets complained. The consensus there seemed to be that it was a bummer to lose the service despite all the scraping.
Oh yeah, I get that there's more than 2 reasons to be upset about AI scraping. I work in the academic library world and the vibe here is
We work with facts and information, and I have no expectation that my collection of facts is something to defend against replication.
On the other hand, I'd be pissed AF if someone stole my research paper on 1800s family drama and reprinted it without attribution, or AI-hallucinated new pseudo-facts that were not in the source materials.
Edit: my situation isn't that of others and I totally get why artists and authors would be upset about AI bots stealing their work.
Social media definitely was a mistake, but at least on the fediverse it's our mistake!
if you're into RSS feeds, i've found one for iOS called feeeed that will let you subscribe to subreddits (or lemmy communities, apologies i'm new here) and when you click on them it starts with the article and you have to tab over to the comments. it's been nice.
Some apps have previews of the article when you open the comments, which might encourage people to read a bit more of the source content
I know we all hate AI here... But getting an AI to rewrite headlines to de-sensationalize them sounds like a fantastic feature for a Lemmy client to implement. Just need mods to allow it
You can always do that manually when creating the post. I do think AI could enforce having a quick summary at a glance... if it was reliably accurate. But again, why do that and prevent traffic from going to the people who did all the work when you can just... you know, go read what the people who made all the work made.
Ultimately there's a fundamental problem in an attention-driven economy directed at squishy-brained humans with biased, broken cognitive systems that can be easily exploited.
You can always do that manually when creating the post
True, but you won't. You'll click the button that automatically populates it instead.
I do think AI could enforce having a quick summary at a glance... if it was reliably accurate. But again, why do that and prevent traffic from going to the people who did all the work
Yeah, that's why I don't like the summary idea, because then even fewer people would click through. It also requires opening the comments which also most people won't do.
I guess fewer people click through with less sensational headlines too, but at least they're not mislead.
