4 ms·
I would say the straw man here is the claim that breaking up (arguable) monopolies or writing consumer protection laws is tantamount to authoritarianism. Those
by jakelazaroff 6y ago
I would say the straw man here is the claim that breaking up (arguable) monopolies or writing consumer protection laws is tantamount to authoritarianism. Those are both fairly innocuous actions within a regulated market.
Rights often exist along a zero-sum spectrum; e.g., Google's right to surveil me on every site that uses Google Analytics impedes on my right to use the web privately. Telling people what they can and cannot do is not a hypothetical. It just comes down to where you draw the line.
- mulmen 6y agoThe straw man in this case is your mischaracterization of my allusion to authoritarianism with regard to users as a polite suggestion to moderate corporate change.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoIt's fair to say that I initially characterized your use of the term as regarding pleas to change personal behavior rather than legislation. But you clarified your meaning with examples fairly mild iterations from the status quo. That's either a straw man or an extremely liberal definition of the word "authoritarian".
- mulmen 6y agoTo be clear are you suggesting that nationalizing Facebook and banning advertising on the Internet are mild iterations on the status quo?
- jonathankoren 6y agoWho is saying this?
- mulmen 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25262354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25262354
- jonathankoren 6y agoI stand corrected. This rando comment on a niche bbs is clearly indicative of a mass political movement that is unstoppable. I will dutifully report to the reëducation center.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jakelazaroff 6y agoYes? The former has plenty of precedent — utilities, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, etc. As far as the latter goes (I'm admittedly reading into it a bit here), it's not revolutionary to say that Internet companies should have to live with the same non-targeted advertising used for every other medium.