Donald Trump just imposed a 25 percent tariff on virtually all goods produced by America’s two largest trading partners — Canada and Mexico. He simultaneously established a 20 percent across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods.
As a result, America’s average tariff level is now higher than at any time since the 1940s.
Meanwhile, China and Canada immediately retaliated against Trump’s duties, with the former imposing a 15 percent tariff on American agricultural products and the latter putting a 25 percent tariff on $30 billion of US goods. Mexico has vowed to mount retaliatory tariffs of its own.
This trade war could have far-reaching consequences. Trump’s tariffs have already triggered a stock market sell-off and cooling of manufacturing activity. And economists have estimated that the trade policy will cost the typical US household more than $1,200 a year, as the prices of myriad goods rise.
All this raises the question: Why has the US president chosen to upend trade relations on the North American continent? The stakes of this question are high, since it could determine how long Trump’s massive tariffs remain in effect. Unfortunately, the president himself does not seem to know the answer.
In recent weeks, Trump has provided five different — and contradictory — justifications for his tariffs on Mexico and Canada…
…more in the article.
The point is to have protection for my content. I have the same rights under the law as ANYBODY ELSE. All are capable of licensing their content on social sites that protects themselves with Safe Harbor laws.
As far as enforcement goes, that is not my job. If a law is not enforced doesn’t mean I don’t try to avail myself of the protections under the law. I don’t constantly audit my local police force to be sure that they are enforcing laws.
I want my content to be available and used by open-source organizations, and I signal that via my license. Otherwise the default licensing (show nothing) does not allow them to do so.
Finally, is it really worth your time (and all other citizens) to nag/harrass someone away from using the same laws that Corporations use to their benefit? I mean I point to an “Ask Lemmy” post often (here, let me do it again) where this has been hashed out already. You’re not saying anything new. But it seems like every individual still wants to recreate the conversation again, and again, and again, for SOME strange reason.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
How do you practically exercise that right? Do you know how much money and time it would cost to attempt to go up against some multi-national corporation that scooped your comment up for their AI? Assuming you can even know it or prove it.
I’m capable of doing so, if I want to. But again, its not my job to enforce it, I’m just availing myself to the laws protection, like all other citizens, corporation, or individual.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
maybe if everyone is telling you the same thing, it’s not us that’s wrong? food for thought.
One, not everybody is telling me the same thing. I learned to do this from someone else here on Lemmy, and I’ve had others tell me that they like that I’m doing what I’m doing, and that its ok to do.
Two, never heard anybody give a valid reason why I’m wrong, just that I’m wasting my time, or that they don’t like me doing it because it bothers them to see it, as if they want the Internet to format what they see to their personal tastes/likes.
Three, its a single line of text that appears in a smaller font at the bottom/footer of a comment. If people are really getting bent out of shape over it, then maybe they need to do some self-interspection on their end.
Four, if its not a smaller font line of text, and they seeing regular sized formatting text, then they need to talk to the developers of the client they are using, and ask them to support sub/superscript fonts. The web site client shows it just fine.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0