upside-down thinking: the law is not for entrepreneurs - eviltoast

A well-respected pirate, neighbor, and Lisper is also a chud. Welcome to HN, the Nazi Bar where everybody’s also an expert in technology.

  • 200fifty@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Raise your hands if you’d rather go back to a world without Airbnb.

    I mean the sneers just write themselves

    • self@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      the very next paragraph:

      Self driving cars, ditto. Cruise’s fleet is finally deployed all around SF, according to pg. It’s about to become as ubiquitous as electricity. And in the beginning, so many people argued that it’s against the law and therefore shouldn’t be developed. Then it quietly shifted to well, maybe the law should change.

      it’s fun to watch self-described engineers tie themselves into knots to defend dangerous technology. this is why programmers aren’t allowed to design bridges (at least until we find a billionaire stupid enough to fund a bridgetech startup (and it’s probably going to be musk))

  • Steve@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s good to obey the law. I certainly try. But treating it as some kind of holy grail of ethics is fraught with peril. You’re outsourcing your thinking to the lowest common denominator: it’s what people in positions of power feel is justice. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t. And when it isn’t, do you really want to be the kind of person that believes it should be obeyed no matter the tradeoffs?

    Kinda sad to hear a person say something like this.

    I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney and this reminds me of the typical bogan attitude that drink driving is only bad if you get caught. This is no different.

    • Steve@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t. And when it isn’t, do you really want to be the kind of person that believes it should be obeyed no matter the tradeoffs?

      I’m not about obeying blindly but when it doesn’t feel like “justice” it doesn’t mean it isn’t. These people want to sound smart, seem smart, and believe they are smart, but they are allergic to learning to understand.

    • bobtreehugger@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That line stuck out to me as well – the law isn’t some holy Grail of ethics, it’s literally the bare minimum.

      • InsurgentRat@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        what?

        I think that guy is an idiot because stuff like airbnb is so demonstrably bad it’s had to be banned in places to help house people but the law doesn’t seem related to ethics except accidentally to me?

        Sometimes the law if aligned with ethics, e.g. don’t kill people cause you get mad at them in traffic. Sometimes it’s monsterous e.g. put peoples struggling with addiction in cages, force abused women back to their husbands, follow this racist order etc.

        I don’t think it’s wrong to say we should be careful about what laws we follow.

        • Steve@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You properly explain how laws can be actually horrendous. Unfortunately the person in the HN post didn’t because they want to justify their breaking of copyright law to level the playing field of breaking copyright law.

          Anyway this tweet was relevant. (Sorry, direct link because nitter seems to be dead and archive.org failed to archive it)

          https://x.com/iwriteok/status/1692702405111292205

          • InsurgentRat@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry, potentially I’m a moron but I don’t understand what you said/the post formerly known as a tweet

            • Steve@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was just a tweet I saw while writing that seemed relevant to the subject. Don’t read too much into it. I have a short attention span.

  • Evinceo@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    He keeps talking though. This is my favorite bit:

    The part I don’t understand is that you feel Gawker was scum. Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. Isn’t that the core of what you’re saying you wish billionaires did? Improve the world?