Oversimplifying it was my point.
In every single art discipline there are ways of creating with very little effort. You can point an iPhone at your nephew and create a photo, but you can also spend weeks stalking an animal for the perfect photo, or a natural phenomenon that rarely occurs. You can arrange the composition of a portrait, spending hours getting the lighting right. That's ignoring the post-processing that can consume a crazy amount of time.
People think that because the technical side of photography is more accessible than in the past, there's very little to the art.
But consider a random stranger's phone. What are the odds that there's a single photo on there that you would enjoy looking at, let alone having a print on your wall? Probably very low.
But then compare that to a professional's portfolio. There's going to be a huge difference, because a professional has the eye for a good photo. And people will happily dismiss their work because it only took 1/64th of a second to capture, and they'll ignore the insane amounts of work that went into honing their ability.
As I said, every single discipline has low-effort works. The very idea that photography is by it's nature so low-effort that it's not worth copyrighting is incredibly short sighted.
So glad the nationalistic Britain hate came over from Reddit.