4 ms·

And so it goes. I have a feeling many people on here would be singing a different tune if the EU suddenly decided that it was a "right" for people to use their

And so it goes. I have a feeling many people on here would be singing a different tune if the EU suddenly decided that it was a "right" for people to use their software no matter who they are. Think of it this way. Would anyone truly benefit if the EU decided that Hacker News was "a valve of free speech" so it must not discriminate who uses it? I think this is a terrible decision and a massive overstep of the state into private affairs. As an aside, I'm not so convinced that wikileaks is as noble an organization as many on here seem to think it is.

danmaz74 14y ago
So, for example, if I operated a bus company, and I wanted not to accept, say, jews on my bus, it would be a "terrible decision and a massive step etc. etc." for the state to intervene? Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work in political matters. Because reality isn't based on simple monotonic logic.
- littlegiantcap 14y ago
  Absolutely reductio ad absurdum works for political arguments. If you didn't think that then why did you literally just use it on my comment? I would say discrimination based on some sort of inherent trait is completely wrong (race, religion, etc) but if a private company chooses to deny service to another private company what affront to civil rights has been committed? I'm sorry but there is no human right to the visa or mastercard network. If you want to support wikileaks send them government issued currency through the government run mail.
  - danmaz74 14y ago
    Actually, I used reductio ad absurdum exactly to show it can work as a rhetorical device, but in politics you can easily construe "demonstrations" for both sides of an argument using it. So it is not a good argument.
  - DasIch 14y ago
    Mail is not necessarily government run.
csense 14y ago
I don't understand why the downvotes. This is a legitimate argument -- although the position isn't popular. On one hand, businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone, without much reason. On the other hand, customers should have a right to certain necessity services that are vital to creating value or functioning in the modern world -- such as electricity, Internet service, or credit card acceptance. The problem is striking a balance when these two rights come into conflict. Usually because the industry providing the necessity is a monopoly or near-monopoly. This case calls for regulation. Since HN isn't a monopoly -- there are plenty of other places for people to get their free speech fix -- it isn't a matter for government regulators if HN tightens its policies. I am worried, though, that the EU government may move in the wrong direction -- requiring compliance with burdensome regulations for providers of non-necessities, or providers of necessities in non-monopoly-like industries. Right now everyone's thinking of the outrage over the Wikileaks situation. But there's always a danger that the legislation that's passed may be overbroad and do more harm than good. Or, even if today's legislators and bureaucrats honestly believe they've limited the new laws and regulations to the necessary cases, tomorrow's legislators and bureaucrats may be able to abuse the authority being created today.
- SEMW 14y ago
  The EU is not a national legislature, they do not have unlimited competence to legislate. If they take anti-monopoly action against a company which is outside their powers set out in Article 102 TFEU, the company can get it overturned. If they legislate in an area outside their powers, nation states (or an individual who's directly and individually concerned by the law) can get it overturned. This isn't theoretical - there's a lot of litigation in front of the CJEU, and things getting overturned is not unusual.

danmaz74 14y ago

So, for example, if I operated a bus company, and I wanted not to accept, say, jews on my bus, it would be a "terrible decision and a massive step etc. etc." for the state to intervene? Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work in political matters. Because reality isn't based on simple monotonic logic.

littlegiantcap 14y ago
Absolutely reductio ad absurdum works for political arguments. If you didn't think that then why did you literally just use it on my comment? I would say discrimination based on some sort of inherent trait is completely wrong (race, religion, etc) but if a private company chooses to deny service to another private company what affront to civil rights has been committed? I'm sorry but there is no human right to the visa or mastercard network. If you want to support wikileaks send them government issued currency through the government run mail.
- danmaz74 14y ago
  Actually, I used reductio ad absurdum exactly to show it can work as a rhetorical device, but in politics you can easily construe "demonstrations" for both sides of an argument using it. So it is not a good argument.
- DasIch 14y ago
  Mail is not necessarily government run.

csense 14y ago

I don't understand why the downvotes. This is a legitimate argument -- although the position isn't popular. On one hand, businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone, without much reason. On the other hand, customers should have a right to certain necessity services that are vital to creating value or functioning in the modern world -- such as electricity, Internet service, or credit card acceptance. The problem is striking a balance when these two rights come into conflict. Usually because the industry providing the necessity is a monopoly or near-monopoly. This case calls for regulation. Since HN isn't a monopoly -- there are plenty of other places for people to get their free speech fix -- it isn't a matter for government regulators if HN tightens its policies. I am worried, though, that the EU government may move in the wrong direction -- requiring compliance with burdensome regulations for providers of non-necessities, or providers of necessities in non-monopoly-like industries. Right now everyone's thinking of the outrage over the Wikileaks situation. But there's always a danger that the legislation that's passed may be overbroad and do more harm than good. Or, even if today's legislators and bureaucrats honestly believe they've limited the new laws and regulations to the necessary cases, tomorrow's legislators and bureaucrats may be able to abuse the authority being created today.

SEMW 14y ago
The EU is not a national legislature, they do not have unlimited competence to legislate. If they take anti-monopoly action against a company which is outside their powers set out in Article 102 TFEU, the company can get it overturned. If they legislate in an area outside their powers, nation states (or an individual who's directly and individually concerned by the law) can get it overturned. This isn't theoretical - there's a lot of litigation in front of the CJEU, and things getting overturned is not unusual.