5 ms·

Since when do hackers bleat about obeying laws and regulations? What happened to having a "we can do better" mindset? Has everybody wigged out and flipped their

Since when do hackers bleat about obeying laws and regulations? What happened to having a "we can do better" mindset? Has everybody wigged out and flipped their "I want a nanny state to protect me 24/7" bit? Hacker News is fairly progressive/authoritarian. The kind of attitude you describe can still be found on slashdot.

Apocryphon 10y ago
It looks like they're pretty much on the side of government/against Uber in the story about Uber flouting DMV regulations: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/12/15/1559226/uber-we-dont-need-a-permit-for-self-driving-cars#comments https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/12/15/1559226/uber-we-don...
mindcrime 10y ago
Hacker News is fairly progressive/authoritarian. It has become more so over the past few years for sure. It was a lot more balanced in the past, as I recall.
vertex-four 10y ago
And as a leftist, Hacker News is very, very libertarian-leaning most of the time by nature of its general support for startup companies no matter what laws they break and its general dislike of laws and systems designed to protect people from the sociopathic entities we call companies. There's some dissent, but it's certainly not a progressive haven. This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law.
- lacampbell 10y ago
  The sociopathic entities we call governments are far more powerful and do far more damage than those we call companies. MacDonalds has yet to bomb anyone that I am aware of, and I can't recall Google using force to prevent someone leaving a country, or Amazon water-boarding people it has captured through overseas kidnapping.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    You're proving his point.
  - microtherion 10y ago
    Corporations generally don't do their own bombing and waterboarding, but they sure hire OTHERS to do their bombing and waterboarding for them. Cf Pepsi's role in the Chilean coup https://www.theguardian.com/business/1998/nov/08/observerbusiness.theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/business/1998/nov/08/observerbus... or the United Fruit company's role in Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre or Guatemala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Árbenz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Árbenz And of course, in their regular operation, many companies routinely pollute the environment: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10722/koch-industries-toxic-gifts-wisconsin http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10722/koch-industries-to... Funny how libertarians never seem to consider dumping millions of lbs of poison into the environment an "initiation of force", but god forbid government raise taxes by one cent.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      If you want to play the game of "find the worst things corporations have done to prove they are worse than states", then you will surely lose. How does the actions of those corporations compare to say the bombing of Hiroshima, or the Great Leap Forward, or the Holocaust? It's also worth noting - both of your examples involved the state actually doing the dirty work. Funny how libertarians never seem to consider dumping millions of lbs of poison into the environment an "initiation of force" Citation needed - AFAIK there is no such consensus.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  HN is very far from being "libertarian leaning". It might have been so in the past, but that time is long gone. This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law. It looks like there are about two of us in that camp, in this discussion, versus pretty much everybody else. It's pretty clear the pendulum has swung and this site is largely oriented towards big government interventionism.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    You should go back and look at some of the Uber posts from when they were still spreading across the US - HN broadly agreed that it was moral to, instead of fighting taxi regulations at the relevant levels (politics or court), just violate them. That HN has stopped being pro-Uber is mostly the result of people realising that Uber is not trustworthy, not a radical change in belief, combined with the fact that Uber apparently gets to do things we as people don't (and believe we shouldn't).

Apocryphon 10y ago

It looks like they're pretty much on the side of government/against Uber in the story about Uber flouting DMV regulations: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/12/15/1559226/uber-we-dont-need-a-permit-for-self-driving-cars#comments https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/12/15/1559226/uber-we-don...

mindcrime 10y ago

Hacker News is fairly progressive/authoritarian. It has become more so over the past few years for sure. It was a lot more balanced in the past, as I recall.

vertex-four 10y ago

And as a leftist, Hacker News is very, very libertarian-leaning most of the time by nature of its general support for startup companies no matter what laws they break and its general dislike of laws and systems designed to protect people from the sociopathic entities we call companies. There's some dissent, but it's certainly not a progressive haven. This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law.

lacampbell 10y ago
The sociopathic entities we call governments are far more powerful and do far more damage than those we call companies. MacDonalds has yet to bomb anyone that I am aware of, and I can't recall Google using force to prevent someone leaving a country, or Amazon water-boarding people it has captured through overseas kidnapping.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  You're proving his point.
- microtherion 10y ago
  Corporations generally don't do their own bombing and waterboarding, but they sure hire OTHERS to do their bombing and waterboarding for them. Cf Pepsi's role in the Chilean coup https://www.theguardian.com/business/1998/nov/08/observerbusiness.theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/business/1998/nov/08/observerbus... or the United Fruit company's role in Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre or Guatemala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Árbenz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Árbenz And of course, in their regular operation, many companies routinely pollute the environment: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10722/koch-industries-toxic-gifts-wisconsin http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10722/koch-industries-to... Funny how libertarians never seem to consider dumping millions of lbs of poison into the environment an "initiation of force", but god forbid government raise taxes by one cent.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    If you want to play the game of "find the worst things corporations have done to prove they are worse than states", then you will surely lose. How does the actions of those corporations compare to say the bombing of Hiroshima, or the Great Leap Forward, or the Holocaust? It's also worth noting - both of your examples involved the state actually doing the dirty work. Funny how libertarians never seem to consider dumping millions of lbs of poison into the environment an "initiation of force" Citation needed - AFAIK there is no such consensus.
mindcrime 10y ago
HN is very far from being "libertarian leaning". It might have been so in the past, but that time is long gone. This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law. It looks like there are about two of us in that camp, in this discussion, versus pretty much everybody else. It's pretty clear the pendulum has swung and this site is largely oriented towards big government interventionism.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  You should go back and look at some of the Uber posts from when they were still spreading across the US - HN broadly agreed that it was moral to, instead of fighting taxi regulations at the relevant levels (politics or court), just violate them. That HN has stopped being pro-Uber is mostly the result of people realising that Uber is not trustworthy, not a radical change in belief, combined with the fact that Uber apparently gets to do things we as people don't (and believe we shouldn't).