5 ms·

I don't see why simply being a startup should give you permission to flaunt the law for whatever reason you deem necessary to be profitable. IMHO, the law usua

by majika 15y ago

I don't see why simply being a startup should give you permission to flaunt the law for whatever reason you deem necessary to be profitable. IMHO, the law usually exists for a reason. I care about antitrust violations, or data privacy violations. If New York requires hotels to be licensed - which I think is a fair requirement - then I don't see why Airbnb patrons should be exempt from that law. This view will probably be unpopular on HN. I don't suggest that the US government stop "harassing" startups because ... they're startups, and economy economy economy. I think you need to find a way to spur wealth creation while still having some rule of law in the country. Tax breaks, government-sponsored venture capital, and immigration incentives are a great way to do that.

forrestthewoods 15y ago
The New York law was passed in July and is, shockingly, sponsored by hotel associations. Laws like that don't exist to protect anyone except those with deep financial interests.
- majika 15y ago
  Whoever wants to associate themselves with the law doesn't invalidate the merits of the law itself. I think there is validity to the idea that venues that provide accommodation should be licensed and certified by the government to ensure quality, safety, and accessibility standards. Do you disagree?
  - temphn 15y ago
    Yes, disagree. Yelp reviews, Google search results, and a million distributed reviewers provide a far more robust evaluation system for quality, safety, and accessibility than a centralized, single-point-of-failure government system. Quality: Zagat's star ratings are superior to anything a .gov agency has produced. Safety: Chicago Crime Maps is superior to anything the Chicago PD has produced. Among other things, a mild tweak can accomodate self reports rather than just things that the police got around to filing (police officers have a number of incentives to understate crime). Accessibility: Google Maps ftw. Will tell you if accessible by car, train, foot, bike. Government agencies can't go out of business (no downside) and have zero incentive to do an amazing job (no upside). It is no surprise that this produces DMV/TSA style mediocrity.
    - majika 15y ago
      It's not about evaluation. It's about ensuring standards, as I said. Yelp reviews are irrelevant. Quality: I'm not talking about star ratings. I'm talking about ensuring hygiene and safety (see below). Safety: I was referring to the need for an authority to ensure that the building is safe for use as accommodation. Are its stairs adequate? Is the wood stable? Are the windows high enough? Is its balcony safe? (for children?) Are there any open boilers or pipes? Is there proper air ventilation? Are there mats in its bathrooms? These are all questions that pertain to the safety of people staying at the venue. It doesn't matter that you or someone else might be willing to take the risk to save a couple of dollars. That's not how the law works. Accessibility: accommodation venues should provide facilities for disabled persons as is required by the law. The fact that you run your business on Airbnb should not exclude you from those requirements. >Government agencies can't go out of business (no downside) and have zero incentive to do an amazing job (no upside). It is no surprise that this produces DMV/TSA style mediocrity. Yep, I'm not going to start an argument about the merits of the government as a concept. I would, however, ask you to compare the state of countries that have a functioning, democratic government, and the countries that don't.
      - BerislavLopac 15y ago
        One of the signs of a non-functioning and/or non-democratic government is the wish to centralize everything, all in the name of "ensuring hygiene and safety" (or whatever their subjects will buy).
temphn 15y ago
We get to the nub of the matter. There is not a single disruptive startup that did not break dozens of laws, either in spirit or in fact. It is impossible for them not to as laws are written by incumbents and are not written in the public interest. Napster and Youtube broke copyright laws. So did Google. Apple's Jobs was a phone phreak. Gates was disciplined by the Ad Board for selling software on campus. And Facebook's creator famously "breach[ed] security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy by creating the website, www.facemash.com". Good entrepreneurs don't give a damn about "the rules", or about those whose primary purpose in life is obeying rules or making up new ones. Indeed, good entrepreneurs have a healthy disrespect for the law. But unlike the common criminal, they break the law to create rather than to destroy. Your assumption is that the legal system is on the side of the average Joe and is protecting their interests against "for profit companies". It is much more accurate to say that a law is like a stationary cannon, which is captured by those with the deepest pockets and aimed at those who would pose market threats to those deep pockets. Real estate developers who already own property support restrictive zoning laws to keep rents high. Life insurers are the biggest lobbyists for the death tax. Large restaurant chains support food safety inspection regimes that result in reams of paperwork, as they can amortize this cost across more employees. Stated good intentions mean nothing. Every system of laws will face gaming attempts from day one, not just from "evil for profit startups" but also from corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists. This needs to be factored into your analysis, as you too easily accept the narrative of "data privacy law" rather than "a law passed to advance the career of so-and-so politician and NGO, funded by lobbyist X, covered sympathetically by journalist Y, and sold to us as a data privacy law".
- majika 15y ago
  >It is much more accurate to say that a law is like a stationary cannon, which is captured by those with the deepest pockets and aimed at those who would pose market threats to those deep pockets. Every law? Antitrust laws? Data privacy laws? Laws that require hotels to be licensed? If you take issue with a law, then that law is the problem; not the enforcing of it. Startups should not be exempt from the law simply because they're a startup. There are better ways to spur wealth creation via small businesses than to allow small businesses to flaunt the law when they see fit.

by majika 15y ago

forrestthewoods 15y ago

The New York law was passed in July and is, shockingly, sponsored by hotel associations. Laws like that don't exist to protect anyone except those with deep financial interests.

majika 15y ago
Whoever wants to associate themselves with the law doesn't invalidate the merits of the law itself. I think there is validity to the idea that venues that provide accommodation should be licensed and certified by the government to ensure quality, safety, and accessibility standards. Do you disagree?
- temphn 15y ago
  Yes, disagree. Yelp reviews, Google search results, and a million distributed reviewers provide a far more robust evaluation system for quality, safety, and accessibility than a centralized, single-point-of-failure government system. Quality: Zagat's star ratings are superior to anything a .gov agency has produced. Safety: Chicago Crime Maps is superior to anything the Chicago PD has produced. Among other things, a mild tweak can accomodate self reports rather than just things that the police got around to filing (police officers have a number of incentives to understate crime). Accessibility: Google Maps ftw. Will tell you if accessible by car, train, foot, bike. Government agencies can't go out of business (no downside) and have zero incentive to do an amazing job (no upside). It is no surprise that this produces DMV/TSA style mediocrity.
  - majika 15y ago
    It's not about evaluation. It's about ensuring standards, as I said. Yelp reviews are irrelevant. Quality: I'm not talking about star ratings. I'm talking about ensuring hygiene and safety (see below). Safety: I was referring to the need for an authority to ensure that the building is safe for use as accommodation. Are its stairs adequate? Is the wood stable? Are the windows high enough? Is its balcony safe? (for children?) Are there any open boilers or pipes? Is there proper air ventilation? Are there mats in its bathrooms? These are all questions that pertain to the safety of people staying at the venue. It doesn't matter that you or someone else might be willing to take the risk to save a couple of dollars. That's not how the law works. Accessibility: accommodation venues should provide facilities for disabled persons as is required by the law. The fact that you run your business on Airbnb should not exclude you from those requirements. >Government agencies can't go out of business (no downside) and have zero incentive to do an amazing job (no upside). It is no surprise that this produces DMV/TSA style mediocrity. Yep, I'm not going to start an argument about the merits of the government as a concept. I would, however, ask you to compare the state of countries that have a functioning, democratic government, and the countries that don't.
    - BerislavLopac 15y ago
      One of the signs of a non-functioning and/or non-democratic government is the wish to centralize everything, all in the name of "ensuring hygiene and safety" (or whatever their subjects will buy).

temphn 15y ago

We get to the nub of the matter. There is not a single disruptive startup that did not break dozens of laws, either in spirit or in fact. It is impossible for them not to as laws are written by incumbents and are not written in the public interest. Napster and Youtube broke copyright laws. So did Google. Apple's Jobs was a phone phreak. Gates was disciplined by the Ad Board for selling software on campus. And Facebook's creator famously "breach[ed] security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy by creating the website, www.facemash.com". Good entrepreneurs don't give a damn about "the rules", or about those whose primary purpose in life is obeying rules or making up new ones. Indeed, good entrepreneurs have a healthy disrespect for the law. But unlike the common criminal, they break the law to create rather than to destroy. Your assumption is that the legal system is on the side of the average Joe and is protecting their interests against "for profit companies". It is much more accurate to say that a law is like a stationary cannon, which is captured by those with the deepest pockets and aimed at those who would pose market threats to those deep pockets. Real estate developers who already own property support restrictive zoning laws to keep rents high. Life insurers are the biggest lobbyists for the death tax. Large restaurant chains support food safety inspection regimes that result in reams of paperwork, as they can amortize this cost across more employees. Stated good intentions mean nothing. Every system of laws will face gaming attempts from day one, not just from "evil for profit startups" but also from corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists. This needs to be factored into your analysis, as you too easily accept the narrative of "data privacy law" rather than "a law passed to advance the career of so-and-so politician and NGO, funded by lobbyist X, covered sympathetically by journalist Y, and sold to us as a data privacy law".

majika 15y ago
>It is much more accurate to say that a law is like a stationary cannon, which is captured by those with the deepest pockets and aimed at those who would pose market threats to those deep pockets. Every law? Antitrust laws? Data privacy laws? Laws that require hotels to be licensed? If you take issue with a law, then that law is the problem; not the enforcing of it. Startups should not be exempt from the law simply because they're a startup. There are better ways to spur wealth creation via small businesses than to allow small businesses to flaunt the law when they see fit.