8 ms·

[flagged]

teaearlgraycold 2y ago
The worst are the seed stage founders complaining about the proposed paper gains tax (while not knowing enough about it to answer if it would apply to startup equity) because they’re definitely going to have enough value for the $100MM threshold to apply to them.
- dgs_sgd 2y ago
  When the income tax was first passed it applied to less than 1% of citizens, yet look where we are now. Just because a new law doesn’t apply to you personally doesn’t mean you can’t be concerned about the potential downstream effects.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Slippery slope arguments with taxes make no sense. A new tax could appear any day on any income level.
- xienze 2y ago
  > because they’re definitely going to have enough value for the $100MM threshold to apply to them. Tax cutoffs have this habit of drifting downward over time (the whole, "eventually you run out of other people's money" thing). See the original revenue act of 1913 (modern US income tax). At first it was 1% starting at today's equivalent of $93K and didn't go any higher until you made the equivalent of about $500K. And today, well, it's a little different. New taxes are always pitched this way -- "oh it'll never affect you, just those rich people, what's your problem?"
xhkkffbf 2y ago
Why are you being a Democrat shill? Didn't you see that recent video of Democratic party boss Hillary Clinton saying the quiet part outloud? If the social media isn't censored, "we lose control." And by "we", she didn't mean you and me. I just don't see this as "SO much better."
Eumenes 2y ago
> cyber-libretarians like Ron Wyden This dude is a certified ghoul. In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      I'm someone who has read up a lot on fascism and still finds it difficult to define clearly. Can you please explain to me how this kind of bill is "literal fascism".
      - bbqfog 2y ago
        It's removing freedom of speech and freedom to boycott. It's using government force to oppress citizens.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Why is that fascism and not communism? It's just general authoritarianism.
        2y ago
game_the0ry 2y ago
Hillary Clinton went on TV and said we should get rid of Section 230 in order to moderate content. So is it really that surprising that SV made a right turn?
- ajuc 2y ago
  SV made the choice before (by accepting money from dictatorships for political influence via social media). Attempts at regulation were a reaction to that. There's no way the situation can stay like that forever. There will be regulation like there's regulation of TV, radio, press, etc. Without regulation you don't get a libertarian utopia - you just get oligarchy.
  - mlinhares 2y ago
    Wait, the libertarian utopia IS oligarchy. So it is all right by their standards.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      There's orders of magnitude more libertarians than oligarchs. It's even in the name :) Most libertarians aren't rational egoists, they are just naive losers oligarchs take advantage of to get more power.
      - mlinhares 2y ago
        They still firmly believe they'll be the oligarchs, just like lots of people think if they were in medieval Europe they would be nobles or knights.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  This argument doesn't hold water. Hillary Clinton is kind of irrelevant at this point. She doesn't hold any kind of elected office and remains pretty unpopular among lefties after losing in 2016. Meanwhile Trump openly tried to reduce the protections of Section 230 while he was president[1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-section-230-and-why-does-trump-want-to-change-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-s...
robertlagrant 2y ago
Bernie Sanders is a cyber-libertarian? What does that mean?
Manuel_D 2y ago
> Folks that think that Trump and his friends like "freedom of speech" or any of the type of techno freedoms we take for granted are in for a deeply rude awakening. The reality is that democrats are so, SO much better on most cyber issues that you're actually a deplorable if you are voting for trump. I'm curious as to why you conclude that Democrats are better than Republicans in terms of IT liberty. Trump ended operation choke point, a program of essentially harassing banks into dropping certain customers [1]. De-banking is, in my opinion, one of the most important threats to "cyber liberties" since it's absolutely crucial for any business to survive. Individuals who are de-banked also find it incredibly difficult to survive: Plenty of services, including apartments and HOAs, do not accept non-electronic payments. The censorship of "misinformation" (much of which later turned out to be true) also grew considerably under the 2020 administration, which did in fact reach out to social media companies to try and influence their decision making. One of the more salient examples was covered by HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365868 To be clear, I'm not concerned about private companies autonomously deciding what to host. I take issue with the government coercing companies into making moderation decisions. This has huge potential for abuse, such as forcing the takedown of politically disadvantageous material. Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of getting rid of Section 230, but for essentially totally different reasons: Republicans seem to want to return to the precedence set by Cubby Inc. vs. CompuServe [2]. Democrats seem to want to narrowly repeal Section 230 to empower the government to dictate the contents of social media. Both are negative in my opinion, but the patter seems more insidious and prone to long term harm. And to be clear, these issues are far, far from enough to get me to vote for Trump. I'm interested in hearing the counter-claim, that the Democrat party is better in terms of cyber liberties. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
bpodgursky 2y ago
> The right-wing turn is absolutely disgusting and should be shattered as soon as possible with prejudice. Do you understand how you are the problem here? Silicon Valley didn't care about politics until politicians started getting involved and attempting to impose censorship regimes, aggressive unrealized gains taxation, and killing crypto assets. Tech startups were find being ignored. But as you illustrate, you can't ignore DC if it chooses not to ignore you. If people like you want to use the power of the state to "shatter" anyone you politically disagree with, well, of course the tech companies will hit back.

[flagged]

The worst are the seed stage founders complaining about the proposed paper gains tax (while not knowing enough about it to answer if it would apply to startup equity) because they’re definitely going to have enough value for the $100MM threshold to apply to them.

dgs_sgd 2y ago
When the income tax was first passed it applied to less than 1% of citizens, yet look where we are now. Just because a new law doesn’t apply to you personally doesn’t mean you can’t be concerned about the potential downstream effects.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Slippery slope arguments with taxes make no sense. A new tax could appear any day on any income level.
xienze 2y ago
> because they’re definitely going to have enough value for the $100MM threshold to apply to them. Tax cutoffs have this habit of drifting downward over time (the whole, "eventually you run out of other people's money" thing). See the original revenue act of 1913 (modern US income tax). At first it was 1% starting at today's equivalent of $93K and didn't go any higher until you made the equivalent of about $500K. And today, well, it's a little different. New taxes are always pitched this way -- "oh it'll never affect you, just those rich people, what's your problem?"

xhkkffbf 2y ago

Why are you being a Democrat shill? Didn't you see that recent video of Democratic party boss Hillary Clinton saying the quiet part outloud? If the social media isn't censored, "we lose control." And by "we", she didn't mean you and me. I just don't see this as "SO much better."

Eumenes 2y ago

> cyber-libretarians like Ron Wyden This dude is a certified ghoul. In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel

Der_Einzige 2y ago
[flagged]
- bbqfog 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I'm someone who has read up a lot on fascism and still finds it difficult to define clearly. Can you please explain to me how this kind of bill is "literal fascism".
    - bbqfog 2y ago
      It's removing freedom of speech and freedom to boycott. It's using government force to oppress citizens.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Why is that fascism and not communism? It's just general authoritarianism.
        2y ago

game_the0ry 2y ago

Hillary Clinton went on TV and said we should get rid of Section 230 in order to moderate content. So is it really that surprising that SV made a right turn?

ajuc 2y ago
SV made the choice before (by accepting money from dictatorships for political influence via social media). Attempts at regulation were a reaction to that. There's no way the situation can stay like that forever. There will be regulation like there's regulation of TV, radio, press, etc. Without regulation you don't get a libertarian utopia - you just get oligarchy.
- mlinhares 2y ago
  Wait, the libertarian utopia IS oligarchy. So it is all right by their standards.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    There's orders of magnitude more libertarians than oligarchs. It's even in the name :) Most libertarians aren't rational egoists, they are just naive losers oligarchs take advantage of to get more power.
    - mlinhares 2y ago
      They still firmly believe they'll be the oligarchs, just like lots of people think if they were in medieval Europe they would be nobles or knights.
AlexandrB 2y ago
This argument doesn't hold water. Hillary Clinton is kind of irrelevant at this point. She doesn't hold any kind of elected office and remains pretty unpopular among lefties after losing in 2016. Meanwhile Trump openly tried to reduce the protections of Section 230 while he was president[1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-section-230-and-why-does-trump-want-to-change-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-s...

robertlagrant 2y ago

Bernie Sanders is a cyber-libertarian? What does that mean?

Manuel_D 2y ago

> Folks that think that Trump and his friends like "freedom of speech" or any of the type of techno freedoms we take for granted are in for a deeply rude awakening. The reality is that democrats are so, SO much better on most cyber issues that you're actually a deplorable if you are voting for trump. I'm curious as to why you conclude that Democrats are better than Republicans in terms of IT liberty. Trump ended operation choke point, a program of essentially harassing banks into dropping certain customers [1]. De-banking is, in my opinion, one of the most important threats to "cyber liberties" since it's absolutely crucial for any business to survive. Individuals who are de-banked also find it incredibly difficult to survive: Plenty of services, including apartments and HOAs, do not accept non-electronic payments. The censorship of "misinformation" (much of which later turned out to be true) also grew considerably under the 2020 administration, which did in fact reach out to social media companies to try and influence their decision making. One of the more salient examples was covered by HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365868 To be clear, I'm not concerned about private companies autonomously deciding what to host. I take issue with the government coercing companies into making moderation decisions. This has huge potential for abuse, such as forcing the takedown of politically disadvantageous material. Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of getting rid of Section 230, but for essentially totally different reasons: Republicans seem to want to return to the precedence set by Cubby Inc. vs. CompuServe [2]. Democrats seem to want to narrowly repeal Section 230 to empower the government to dictate the contents of social media. Both are negative in my opinion, but the patter seems more insidious and prone to long term harm. And to be clear, these issues are far, far from enough to get me to vote for Trump. I'm interested in hearing the counter-claim, that the Democrat party is better in terms of cyber liberties. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.

bpodgursky 2y ago

> The right-wing turn is absolutely disgusting and should be shattered as soon as possible with prejudice. Do you understand how you are the problem here? Silicon Valley didn't care about politics until politicians started getting involved and attempting to impose censorship regimes, aggressive unrealized gains taxation, and killing crypto assets. Tech startups were find being ignored. But as you illustrate, you can't ignore DC if it chooses not to ignore you. If people like you want to use the power of the state to "shatter" anyone you politically disagree with, well, of course the tech companies will hit back.