Wholly disregarding the opinions of others solely because you dislike and/or misunderstand an unrelated decision is just poor judgement.

You shouldn't evaluate the validity of an argument based on where it comes from, rather, evaluate it on it's own merits.

So yes, I do care what he says because it is relevant to my interests.

"You shouldn't evaluate the validity of an argument based on where it comes from"

Then why is his name is in the title? He's not the first person to make these points. The only reason The Guardian has to publish this over the thousands of other sources of the same opinion is his name. That was my only point. I didn't even read the article because I already disagree with the premise, give more control to the wrong people, just like with DRM. Regulations become legal "weapons" just as often as they actually help society. When they do, its usually the existing big companies that can A) afford to comply and B) know how to exploit the regulations to burden their competitors.

>Then why is his name is in the title? He's not the first person to make these points. The only reason The Guardian has to publish this over the thousands of other sources of the same opinion is his name. That was my only point.

And? It's not a very solid point tbh. "Other people said it too" isn't an argument against anything.

> I didn't even read the article because I already disagree with the premise, give more control to the wrong people, just like with DRM. Regulations become legal "weapons" just as often as they actually help society. When they do, its usually the existing big companies that can A) afford to comply and B) know how to exploit the regulations to burden their competitors.

You see, that is an actual argument against the premise of the article. Or atleast the title since you skimmed over the contents. Though I disagree that regulation will make things worse considering how bad things already are.