oh man.

my comment was about the very human need to be recognized for something created, made, or thought by a person. People are ok with writing blog posts, they're ok with writing software, and they're ok with give it all for free, but they want their name attached and their contribution recognized.

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>my comment was about the very human need to be recognized for something created, made, or thought by a person.

And I specifically addressed that aspect:

>The moral question is more ambiguous, but it's still pretty weak. Most recipes are uncredited, and it's unclear why someone can force everyone to attribute the recipe to them when all they realistically did was tweak the dish a bit. In the example above, I doubt you invented cookies.

The cookies analogy was terrible because recipes are rarely credited, but even ignoring the terrible analogy the "recognition" argument still fails. If you wrote a blog post on how to set up kubernetes (or whatever), then it's fair enough that you get recognized for that specific blog post. If my friend asked me how to set up kubernetes, it wouldn't be cool for me to copy paste your blog post and send it over.

However similar to copyright, the recognition you deserve quickly drops off once it moves beyond that specific work. If I absorbed the knowledge from your blog post, then wrote another guide on setting up kubernetes, perhaps updated for my use case, it's unreasonable to require that you be credited. It might be nice, and often times people do, but it's also unreasonable if you wrote an angry letter demanding that you be credited. You weren't the inventor of kubernetes, and you probably got your knowledge of kubernetes from elsewhere (eg. the docs the creators made), so why should everyone have to credit you in perpetuity?

▲

GeoAtreides 3 hours ago | parent [-]

your ability to not address my argument main point is something to behold. can't tell if you're doing on purpose or not.

if humans read my blog posts and then things without credit that would be fine. i like human eyeballs and i like them on my content. that's exactly the purpose of the blog post (_in this particular example_), to get human eyeballs on the content.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>your ability to not address my argument main point is something to behold. can't tell if you're doing on purpose or not.

Or maybe you're just terrible at writing.

>if humans read my blog posts and then things without credit that would be fine.

I'm not sure how I (or anyone) was supposed to come away with this conclusion when you were writing stuff like:

"i'm ok with giving the recipe for free, i just want my name out there"

"the very human need to be recognized for something created"

"they want their name attached and their contribution recognized".

	▲	GeoAtreides 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		there is nothing contradictory in what i said, and if you weren't favoring a very literal interpretation of my argument you would agree. but, in the spirit of critical reading education, what i meant is: human attention good, machine ingestion bad.