4 ms·

> The term “Little Tech” was popularized by the VC firm Andreessen Horowitz, which argued that excessive regulation was stifling innovation. When someone says

• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• dangus 1y ago
  Yeah, I’m over here wondering “what regulation?” The US basically has none outside of banking and healthcare.
  • PicassoCTs 1y ago
    They want the rule of law to end, the end of responsibility - and they dont want to understand, that the result is a decaying oligarchy similar to russia. Its the ideological equivalent to having your cake and eating it.
    • CPLX 1y ago
      They understand just fine. They’re the oligarchs.
      • Aloisius 1y ago
        If they were actually oligarchs, they'd have already done what they want. Conflating some wealthy people who have, at best, mild influence over the government, with actual oligarchs in an oligarchy is... rhetorical nonsense. I get how it happened. We started referring to wealthy Russians in the 90s who actually wielded substantial control over government similar to oligarchs and we continued to refer to them as such even after they lost any semblance of political power, but still.
        • KPGv2 1y ago
          [flagged]
          • lurk2 1y ago
            https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
          • Aloisius 1y ago
            You mean the guy the administration smeared as an ineffective, incontinent drug addict and who had to duck out because of the harm to his companies? The guy who promised trillions in cuts an managed to deliver almost none? The guy who is now railing against the budget bill and being ignored by those actually in power? His power is nothing compared to actual oligarchs in real oligarchies in history. The Thirty Tyrants could pass laws, sit in judgement and execute anyone they wanted for any reason (and did). They controlled every aspect of Athens. Musk got some people to retire early, got some people fired (often temporarily), was overruled by the judiciary and the administration regularly and was generally ineffectual. Calling him an oligarch is extreme hyperbole.
            • MentatOnMelange 1y ago
              He was given unprecedented power over federal agencies by the president after giving the largest political donation in US history. He had more power than many people will real roles and functions. The fact he appears not to have accomplished much with it says more about his competence as a leader than the nature of oligarchy.
  • sershe 1y ago
    Citation needed The number of pages in the federal regulations only grows over time (admin to admin). Construction of any kind, including housing, education and childcare come to mind as things you missed. I.e. - everything that people complain is really expensive. Most industries in the US are heavy regulated. The ones that are not so heavily regulated - like software, and/or evade a lot of regulation abroad - like many consumer goods from shirts to cars - are the ones not getting more expensive.
  • Aurornis 1y ago
    > The US basically has none outside of banking and healthcare This isn't even remotely true. Heavy regulation is actually one of the reasons why it's so hard to do things like build new housing or get high-speed rail, for two popular examples. Anyone who has worked in regulatory compliance at software or hardware companies will also roll their eyes at the claim that the United States has basically no regulation.
  • singleshot_ 1y ago
    Do you think can change the brakes on your own airplane? How many disposable nicotine vapes are legal for sale in the US? How far do you have to be from a road to camp in a national forest? What is the Jones Act? Can you shoot down a drone? Do you have to obey a flight attendant? What is a nickel made out of? What are the elements of a pre trip inspection for a tractor trailer? Etc., etc.
• jahewson 1y ago
  This doesn’t make logical sense - there’s no need to find loopholes if regulation is reduced.
  • coldtea 1y ago
    Loopholes are "holes" and blind-spots in the law. A reduction in regulation involves opening more of those. It's not about making something totally unregulated (in which case there wouldn't be a need for loopholes, as any bad practice would be fine). More about reducing the more targeted and detailed parts of regulations that prevent loopholes and keeping the "core laws" - that then have gaping holes and blind spots.
• alephnerd 1y ago
  > When someone says regulation is stifling innovation What they mean is SOX and regulation around IPOs and SPACs. This has been a significant sticking point of A16Z's leadership (and other VCs) for 15 years now. Most startups funded in the 2010s have decided to remain private, take an acquisition, or continue to raise later and later stage rounds (eg. Stripe, Databricks), which has impacted the amount of capital funds like A16Z, Accel, Sequoia, etc can deploy, and tends to benefit traditional IBs like JPM, GS, Barclays, etc. This is why A16Z and YC backed LTSE, and supported SPACs for the brief window they were opened. There is a need for compliance, but liquidity is starting to become difficult to realize for early stage investors. > VC money is fueling a global boom in worker surveillance tech Their definition for "surveillance tech" is broad, and includes a significant portion of the Security, Compliance, and Defense startups which are often required by legislators or insurers due to breaches (eg. Snowflake). Generally speaking, we fund startups if they are solving a problem we have heard about from our peers AND that it has a tangible TAM that can justify later stage participants.
• sershe 1y ago
  I dunno, I thought that it used to be common knowledge in these circles that "we need this to protect the children" meant the government-critter was malicious. I.e. approximately the reverse. I'd say if anything, these days the above can be expanded to apply with regard to any sufficiently narrowly defined and sympathetic group.
• pimlottc 1y ago
  "Little Tech", my god, what a shameless whitewashing. As if being backed by a billion-dollar VC makes you a plucky little underdog...
  • alephnerd 1y ago
    It does when competing against Microsoft, Alphabet, or Amazon.
    • cmrdporcupine 1y ago
      The vast majority of these "Little Tech" companies are only funded by the VCs in hopes that the "Big Tech" companies buy them up.
    • coldtea 1y ago
      They're not competing, they're marketing themselves to them...
      • alephnerd 1y ago
        Depends fund to fund and startup. Some funds and VCs (like the one I work with) are fine with an acquisition as an exit if the stars align. Others (like A16Z) are funding in order to IPO and make the next Facebook. Not all funds follow the same strategy.
  • bdcravens 1y ago
    There's a reason why YC has so many companies in a cohort. They know most will fail, and honestly, will stink. It's a reason why so many of the companies that post here that mention what cohort they were in often get a collective (but silent) "who?" from the readership.
• guywithahat 1y ago
  I mean there is lots of worthless regulation. The Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) form is new as of last year, and adds complexity to company formation while also risking tanking the company if you don't fill it out properly. The real-world upside is basically nil, despite their promises of fraud prevention. Lots of these laws exist, and they stifle innovation. We're approaching a point where you need a lawyer and document service for a company formation, and these laws prevent small companies from attempting formation and can kill growing companies.
  • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > risking tanking the company if you don't fill it out properly Source? I thought it’s a best efforts form.
    • trollbridge 1y ago
      Company-ending fines plus threat of prison time.
    • guywithahat 1y ago
      My understanding was you could have to pay 500 a day (inflation adjusted to ~600) for each day you're late. That's a quarter million after a little over a year. When I last incorporated with stripe atlas they told me I had to do it, although maybe they just wanted an extra fee. Either way I maintain this sort of thing adds complexity and makes it hard for people to start businesses who are experts in things other than incorporation law
      • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > you could have to pay 500 a day (inflation adjusted to ~600) for each day you're late. That's a quarter million after a little over a year That’s not filling it out improperly, it’s forgetting to file. I’m also not familiar with any cases where this fine was unfairly applied. (I agree with you that BOI is as over broad as it’s badly named.)
• JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > When someone says regulation is stifling innovation It’s also wild how firms deploying “technologies that promise to track, manage, and supervise workers” aren’t themselves considered to be adding regulation to their processes.
  • alephnerd 1y ago
    There should be, but the regulation that A16Z is mentioning is Andreessen's longstanding fight over IPOs and SPACs. I don't necessarily agree with him (there is room for improvement, but we made these regulations due to the bubble in the 90s and 2000s), but he's been very open about this for at least 15 years now.
    • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the regulation that A16Z is mentioning is Andreessen's longstanding fight over IPOs and SPACs The idea that SOX is what’s keeping SpaceX and OpenAI private should have died after the JOBS Act’s failure. But I guess SPACS were a nice Covid bailout for Wall Street.
      • alephnerd 1y ago
        I agree with you! But Andressen's contention ain't about OpenAI or SpaceX - it's about money pits like Kong, Envoy, or Illumio that should have IPOed or SPACed in 2019-21 but have founders who chose to remain private because they would have been screwed over by the public market. From an A16Z leadership perspective, they have a significant roster of 2011-19 vintage startups that they would have preferred to list so they could redeploy capital (and make their carry), but didn't because listing sucks if you're a founder (as Pat pointly elucidated on multiple occasions during 20-22 while raising his growth round). And their valuations are too high so later stage investors push back in board meetings. As yk, it's business - we're all looking for our own net benefits, but some are more let's say "personalist" about their positions. And to reiterate, I agree with your stance and point - I'm just trying to voice the other (imo unjustified and greedy) PoV that explains some of the statements and actions coming out of these guys. It's not like I have many places to kvetch without career ending implications - I can only annoying Dan P enough times
• lurk2 1y ago
  Andreessen has been interacting with Thiel’s network on Twitter for a few years now. These guys always have takes that can appear intriguing for being contrary to popular opinion, but once you see where the money originates, their attitudes become predictable. Andreessen in particular has spent a few years flirting with the literature they send him. It might have been sincere (a lot of this literature is popular among Silicon Valley rightists), but in retrospect it seems like it was just a PR campaign to make him look like one of the “cool” billionaires. Once Andreessen gave the “Little Tech” interview, it became apparent to a lot of people where his true interests were. Similar things happened with Elon Musk, JD Vance, Blake Masters, Palmer Luckey, and others in that sphere. I think Mark Zuckerberg tried to buy his way in in the last few years, but I’ve never seen any evidence that it worked.
• taurath 1y ago
  I often work in highly regulated markets. Every regulation I've seen makes sense, even if sometimes it costs a TON of money to get thru - most of the time the biggest problems and highest costs with regulation are when the gov tries to do some bullshit private public partnership and have private companies do accreditation and stuff like that.