5 ms·

Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business witho

Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
That would also imply that there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day. Since burdensome, long-lasting, legally required procedures can also be imposed by a court on an individual. Seems like a slippery slope to be honest.
- omnimus 3y ago
  No? Because corporations/companies are not individuals? (no matter how they sometimes try to be)
- bluGill 3y ago
  There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist. If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated. Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.
    - numbsafari 3y ago
      I think your calculation is wrong. There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others. You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free time? Find a better way.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Have you gotten confused about the topic? The court can already do this if the ruling holds which is why we are discussing it in the first place. Your phrasing it as if it's up to individual members of society to decide to impose on each other. If you think this is relevant, can you describe how?
    - jeroenhd 3y ago
      There are specific laws indirectly governing work-life balance, such as maximum hours worked consecutively, certain contract stupilations being null and voice because of general law, regulations regarding sick pay, and protections against discrimination, but I don't think there are many countries that explicitly state the right to a productive life with free time. Rights to housing, welfare, and healthcare are generally handled independently. I'm not sure if there is a "right to transportation". Most rights originate from a basic "right to a happy life" ideal, but are split up and spelt out in particular sub-rights that are easier to enforce in court. Article 8 of the ECHR and similar human rights conventions seem to come close, but that's mostly used against governments and laws. I don't think it's a bad idea to introduce such a right, but it needs to be carefully worded or it will cause a lot of trouble.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Yes, everyone wants a better life for themselves and they don't want to consider all the trade offs of consequences of that. In particular they often want to force their own ideals on someone else.
- ballballball 3y ago
  Ahhh... The old "corporations are people" equivocation.
  - pmontra 3y ago
    We had a post about that a few months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36732729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36732729
    - true_religion 3y ago
      In the US, corporations have the same rights as people because they are collectively made up from people. In the EU, corporations have fewer rights than the individuals that collectively make them up. In other countries, different rules apply de jure or de facto. People’s main complaint about corporations is that no one personally gets hit with a civil charge and civil charges never seem to change the behavior of corporations.
mszcz 3y ago
> Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That. I'm so tired of this excuse being used which basically amounts to complaining that you wouldn't been able to get so big and fat if you didn't break the rules.
- tap-snap-or-nap 3y ago
  Move fast, break things is basically don't get caught when you break social contracts and regulations.
DannyBee 3y ago
This is a fun quip, but are you literally suggesting that someone should have to read every webpage indexed by a search engine? That is what the comment you are responding to suggests doesn't scale. If so, that seems, way off the deep end to me, and you know, slightly different from your local coal plant killing everyone through pollution. If not, what precisely is your okay (If non-scalable) solution to the problem presented here?
- arp242 3y ago
  If I put something defamatory on my website I can get sued. Why should it be different for Google? "We cannot have someone response to every complaint!" – okay, I understand. Then maybe don't do whatever you're doing at all then if you can't handle the responsibility?
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    It isn't different. Let's not change the subject - this isn't about responding to complaints - the suggestion here was basically that someone should have to review every single web page that gets indexed. Either that's what we want or it isn't. Let's not change the subject because this is a line that might have to be drawn.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  If you can't build your product within the bounds of laws and morals, your product sucks or you don't have what it takes to build such a product.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    This is again, a great quip, but let's go back to the literal concrete question i asked, to see what line is getting drawn here. Should Google, or whoever, have to literally review every single page they index? If yes, how do you expect that to work. If no, what is actually being suggested beyond the quips?
    - 3y ago
Symmetry 3y ago
That's true in principle, but in this case I think that the existence of search engines is a net social good and I think it would be a big loss for all of us if they disappeared. Not that the days of web rings and hand-curated website lists didn't have their own charm but I think that the net effect would be a huge increase in the power of walled gardens.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

That would also imply that there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day. Since burdensome, long-lasting, legally required procedures can also be imposed by a court on an individual. Seems like a slippery slope to be honest.

omnimus 3y ago
No? Because corporations/companies are not individuals? (no matter how they sometimes try to be)
bluGill 3y ago
There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist. If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated. Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.
  - numbsafari 3y ago
    I think your calculation is wrong. There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others. You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free time? Find a better way.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Have you gotten confused about the topic? The court can already do this if the ruling holds which is why we are discussing it in the first place. Your phrasing it as if it's up to individual members of society to decide to impose on each other. If you think this is relevant, can you describe how?
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    There are specific laws indirectly governing work-life balance, such as maximum hours worked consecutively, certain contract stupilations being null and voice because of general law, regulations regarding sick pay, and protections against discrimination, but I don't think there are many countries that explicitly state the right to a productive life with free time. Rights to housing, welfare, and healthcare are generally handled independently. I'm not sure if there is a "right to transportation". Most rights originate from a basic "right to a happy life" ideal, but are split up and spelt out in particular sub-rights that are easier to enforce in court. Article 8 of the ECHR and similar human rights conventions seem to come close, but that's mostly used against governments and laws. I don't think it's a bad idea to introduce such a right, but it needs to be carefully worded or it will cause a lot of trouble.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Yes, everyone wants a better life for themselves and they don't want to consider all the trade offs of consequences of that. In particular they often want to force their own ideals on someone else.
ballballball 3y ago
Ahhh... The old "corporations are people" equivocation.
- pmontra 3y ago
  We had a post about that a few months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36732729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36732729
  - true_religion 3y ago
    In the US, corporations have the same rights as people because they are collectively made up from people. In the EU, corporations have fewer rights than the individuals that collectively make them up. In other countries, different rules apply de jure or de facto. People’s main complaint about corporations is that no one personally gets hit with a civil charge and civil charges never seem to change the behavior of corporations.

mszcz 3y ago

> Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That. I'm so tired of this excuse being used which basically amounts to complaining that you wouldn't been able to get so big and fat if you didn't break the rules.

tap-snap-or-nap 3y ago
Move fast, break things is basically don't get caught when you break social contracts and regulations.

DannyBee 3y ago

This is a fun quip, but are you literally suggesting that someone should have to read every webpage indexed by a search engine? That is what the comment you are responding to suggests doesn't scale. If so, that seems, way off the deep end to me, and you know, slightly different from your local coal plant killing everyone through pollution. If not, what precisely is your okay (If non-scalable) solution to the problem presented here?

arp242 3y ago
If I put something defamatory on my website I can get sued. Why should it be different for Google? "We cannot have someone response to every complaint!" – okay, I understand. Then maybe don't do whatever you're doing at all then if you can't handle the responsibility?
- DannyBee 3y ago
  It isn't different. Let's not change the subject - this isn't about responding to complaints - the suggestion here was basically that someone should have to review every single web page that gets indexed. Either that's what we want or it isn't. Let's not change the subject because this is a line that might have to be drawn.
jeroenhd 3y ago
If you can't build your product within the bounds of laws and morals, your product sucks or you don't have what it takes to build such a product.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  This is again, a great quip, but let's go back to the literal concrete question i asked, to see what line is getting drawn here. Should Google, or whoever, have to literally review every single page they index? If yes, how do you expect that to work. If no, what is actually being suggested beyond the quips?
  - 3y ago

Symmetry 3y ago

That's true in principle, but in this case I think that the existence of search engines is a net social good and I think it would be a big loss for all of us if they disappeared. Not that the days of web rings and hand-curated website lists didn't have their own charm but I think that the net effect would be a huge increase in the power of walled gardens.