6 ms·

You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. All the oversight and regulation about everything you do

by feoren 3mo ago

You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. All the oversight and regulation about everything you don't care and/or know about is big bad government overreach. Every government agency is a useless waste of your tax dollars, except the ones you rely on and the ones where you have friends that work there. Do I have that right?

vanviegen 3mo ago
Though your point may have some value, your comment comes across as meanspirited and ad hominem. Also, regulation is not universally supported by knowledgeable consumers. Often quite the opposite, in fact.
- nfw2 3mo ago
  Mean spirited sure, ad hominem, no. It's satirizing the argument, not personal traits unrelated to the argument
  - vanviegen 3mo ago
    I stand corrected.
  - kybernetikos 3mo ago
    It's definitely a bad argument worthy of some sort of label. It seems to go "you believe this thing, which I won't engage with at all, but I'll assume that because of the way you said it, you also believe all this other stuff that I disagree with".
    - nfw2 3mo ago
      The term you are looking for is straw man
  - zahlman 3mo ago
    No, satire would involve an attempt to pretend to make the same argument while exposing flaws. This was just a bunch of uncharitable strawmen.
alecsm 3mo ago
I understand his comment as being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress. But he would support a regulation for this because it's a violation against the property of the buyer.
- datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
  > being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress Does such strawman regulation even exist? Some regulation is intentionally designed to limit “progress”, where “progress” happens to have negative externalities. It’s kind of a self-legitimizing opinion. Of course anyone would be against unnecessary regulations. I think the real world is not arguing about whether a regulation is necessary, but rather if the economic burden it creates is worth the positive impact it has on society, which is highly contentious, highly subjective debate.
  - braiamp 3mo ago
    Only the regulation that doesn't evolve with the time or written so that it stays within the confines of a context that doesn't exists. Certain big country constitution is a prime example of that.
  - homer456 3mo ago
    It takes a minimum of 600 hours of training to get licensed to cut hair in California. Pex plumbing is banned in Chicago as a union protectionist regulation. The "chicken tax" regulation scheme has screwed up the US truck market for decades. Electrical code requirements for the wiring of kitchen islands have changed drastically with very small justification within a short span of time. To this day it is illegal to trade onion futures in Chicago due to an attempt to corner the market on onions decades ago(probably over a century can't be bothered to check). Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer. The affordable care act is written in such a way that the only way for insurers to increase their profit margin on health plans is to increase the cost they pay out to providers ("gold plating") CAFE fuel economy standards have lead to the arms race of increased vehicle sizes for unnecessary reasons.
protocolture 3mo ago
>All the oversight and regulation about everything you don't care and/or know about is big bad government overreach. I can literally list all the stupid regulation that needs to be removed from my industry. A lot of it is incredibly boneheaded. There's exactly 1 thing I do like, and it was extremely situational and set down in the 90s to avoid a very specific potential failure, and could easily be repealed without issue right now. I presume, based on the experience in an industry I am very familiar with, that at least 60% of the regulation put on other industries is likewise counter productive and boneheaded. And every now and then when I do a deep dive somewhere I tend to confirm that.
pseudocomposer 3mo ago
I think “when you buy a product, be it a game, a house, a car, a computer, a tractor, washer, TV, it should continue to operate without rent-seeking behavior” is the best type of straightforward, uniformly-applicable pattern of regulation one could hope for. Opposing rent-seeking is literally why we have American democracy, which paved the way for French, Brazilian, Canadian, Indian, Mexican and so many other democracies. Kings were the ultimate rent-seekers: every citizen was the product. It’s not like this is some special case. People make the exact same arguments against John Deere, Tesla, Apple etc. And it’s a major reason many understand we should favor local (or local-capable/open-weight) AI/LLMs. I think “for any product whose support is discontinued, with more than X users, either open source all relevant software and hardware schematics, or provide a binary that will work on the hardware in perpetuity without DRM checks, based on industry” is a miniscule request in the face of any of these industries. I’d say, for instance, weights for discontinued Claude and OpenAI versions would fit. And it’s exactly the type of problem (functioning) democracies are meant for.
- airstrike 3mo ago
  Hear, hear! One of the best comments I've read in over a decade on this site
- Terr_ 3mo ago
  Also: Those ownership/privacy obligations to customers should come first in bankruptcy proceedings, ahead of other debts. IANABankrupcyLawyer, but I believe the status-quo is that various promises like "we'll open-source the server in the end" or "we'll never sell your data" can become voided in the name of making a buck to repay the landlord or business-partner.
  - account42 3mo ago
    I think the obligation should be transfer to the copyright holder in the case of bankruptcy. They can then choose to either make individual buyers whole or give up copyright protection.
    - 3mo ago
scubadude 3mo ago
[flagged]
- recursivegirth 3mo ago
  If buying isn't ownership, than piracy isn't stealing. Government can do what they want, but if they ain't for the people, I ain't for the Government.
  - shapefrog 3mo ago
    It is still, as far as I am aware, possible to steal a rental car.
    - nullocator 3mo ago
      No one renting a car is being told they are buying it and walking (driving) away under the assumption that they have.
user3939382 3mo ago
You’re making an equally nebulous point, as if all govt regulation is good and overreach doesn’t exist by definition or something.
Frieren 3mo ago
You did a summary of conservative ideology. All laws should be abolished so I can do whatever I want, but laws should regulate everything I do not like and the punishment should be harsh. It is an ideology based in short-term self interest. It is the way toddlers think about the world before growing up. Laws should help to create a well functioning society where everybody can participate and benefit from it in a fair system. Regulations are part of a functional society. Digital ownership is not different from anything else. Regulate it correctly or the most powerful people will just take away everything from you.
- Gravityloss 3mo ago
  I think it's an accurate description of a common way of thinking, though I wouldn't call it conservative in the global sense. Another is some of the domestic manufacturing or hard tech movement people who present lofty ideals about jobs and sovereignty and so on. But there's a claim that when the surface is scratched a bit, it devolves into a want to keep their imported cheap input materials tax / toll free while introducing taxes and tolls to their foreign competitors' end products. I mean who would pay for domestic materials, they're much more expensive, there'd be no margin!
  - rickdeckard 3mo ago
    > I think it's an accurate description of a common way of thinking, though I wouldn't call it conservative in the global sense. It's not a common way of thinking, not in my observation. Conservative / neo-liberal narratives push strongly against any form of "bigger picture view", more explicitly against solidarity, fueling this mindset of "I only support what profits me personally", i.e. "everyone's taxes should be used for roads (because I have a car), public transport is a waste of money (everyone should buy a car)". -> It's a vertical word-view, where others are seen either above you (appease them) or below you (disregard them, they should appease you) -- Liberal citizens still (try to) build on a sense of solidarity, of common investments for the "greater good" of a just (future) society, i.e. "I do have a car, but a stronger public transport system is a benefit to me and my peers" -> It's a horizontal world-view, where others are seen equal to you and people are much more willing to stand up for each other and unite their voice for a cause. -- I'm aware that this is not that visible in US, because there are only two major parties here, which both try to please the maximum of the middle spectrum. So both follow a rather conservative narrative and tend to pay lip-service only. In countries with more than two major political parties it's more visible because the "center-left" democratic party is also threatened by competition from the "left", not just from the "center-right"/"right" party, so they need to acknowledge that citizens raise DEMANDS to them and are willing to walk away if they are not met.
AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
> You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. That's not really it. The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute. It can't be the thing that saves you in the case where the government is prohibiting it. To put it another way, the thing that would really reduce regulations is to get rid of copyright, but maybe we want to be pragmatic here and instead of demanding that it be abolished entirely, we just want the prohibition the government is imposing on the users to not be extended through an unconscionable power grab and destroy the rights of First Sale and Fair Use that have always belonged to the customer.
- michaelt 3mo ago
  > The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute. Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends). To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example.
  - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
    > Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends). Which is not at all the same thing, not least because software has a network effect. It's like saying that a company having a monopoly on cars is fine because you can walk or take the bus. If your claim was actually true then copyright would have no purpose since "granting a monopoly" is its mechanism of operation. > To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example. How does that help you when the next game comes out, requiring a "Microsoft" account from the first day? The problem is inherently that you can't get the game from anyone -- even a used copy from an existing customer -- without subjecting yourself to the requirement you reject, or de facto being stripped of your rights under First Sale.
zahlman 3mo ago
This is an impressively uncharitable read of GP, and in my view totally uncalled for. People who "generally" oppose "regulation", in my experience, very often have very good reasons for having adopted that stance, that are rooted in examination (or at least knowledge) of several actually existing regulations. And I would hope we all agree that there are plenty of really bad regulations out there. (If not: I invite you to check out the book https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp... , and consider how this legal state of affairs could come about.) The entirely unfounded allegation of cronyism ("and the ones where you have friends that work there") is especially absurd. Where the guidelines say > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. this is the exact mechanism for "trampling curiousity" I imagine the site staff have in mind. Why would anyone who can offer you an alternative point of view, want to participate in an environment where responses read like this?
- spauldo 3mo ago
  I agree that the characterization was uncalled for in the post you replied to. But I don't agree with your statement that most people who generally oppose regulation have good reasons for doing so. Conservative media outlets have pushed that stance for decades now and it gets regurgitated all the time. Ask most of them what specific regulations they want to see gone and you'll get a blank stare.
- feoren 3mo ago
  I am criticizing a common pattern of thought that I observe, including in the post I responded to. "I'm against X in general, but in this case X is warranted" is a very dangerous thought process, and I believe a good way to try to dispel it is to ask "are all the special cases just ones that you understand and affect you personally, and all the 'in general' ones that you don't?". It doesn't need to be 100% accurate to be a good challenge of the thought pattern. Yes, there are really bad regulations out there. Some of them are well-intended but poorly thought out, but even more are regulatory capture that is enabled by the same "they're all bad anyway" attitude. Let's work on improving regulations. In my experience, the people who are "against regulation in general" are not the ones who are interested in improving the regulatory body as a whole, and in fact work directly against it. > The entirely unfounded allegation of cronyism ("and the ones where you have friends that work there") is especially absurd I was not accusing anyone of cronyism. I was saying that people who have friends who work at, say, USGS, probably talk about what they do and understand that they actually serve a useful function. I am challenging those people to consider the fact that perhaps agencies they've barely heard of also serve a useful function, and they would also support the existence of that agency if they had had conversations with people who work there. Cronyism has nothing to do with it, only familiarity, understanding, and a personal connection.
_heimdall 3mo ago
I can't speak for the GP obviously, but lumping together all regulation is a mistake. This would be a situation of having regulation protect our rights rather than limit them. That's a huge distinction and the former isn't particularly common today, more often than not if someone is raising concerns over a new regulation its because the regulation is limiting their rights.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
GaryBluto 3mo ago
[flagged]
NikolaNovak 3mo ago
Yes; and to make it extremely politically explosive, I do enjoy observing American politics and seeing each side (there are, brilliantly, two, because there ARE only two sides to every story and they neatly correlate with each other 100%:) massively enlarge the government, apply massive new restrictive regulations, but one side claims they don't do that because of somewhat specific types of massive government regulations and enlargements they do :) At its best, a government law/regulation/policy is people saying "Ouch, that hurt, let's not do THAT again!", or "Oooh, I like this, this is good for us, let's do more of THAT please!". At its worst, its self-preserving bureaucracy run rampant. Any oversimplifying platitude like "I'm against big government!" or "I'm against government regulation!" so tremendously lacks specifics as to be worse than worthless. And this is an extremely complicated issue which a tiny minority of people care about that'd be ridiculously over-complicated to implement with huge difficulty in tracking and enforcing! But because where we are, it resonates with us, and we on Hacker News feel it's an obvious and easy policy to apply :). You know, unlike the minor issues of war and peace and hunger and poverty and economics and minority rights et cetera :) 100 internet points and tip of a hat to you sir :)
- Delk 3mo ago
  > a tiny minority of people care about [...] You know, unlike the minor issues of war and peace and hunger and poverty and economics and minority rights et cetera :) The complexity and realism of some particular regulation aside, I honestly don't understand dismissing other people's opinions on the grounds that not a lot of people care about them. Should people not have an opinion because lots of other people don't share it? Or should those opinions just not be expressed? Everybody's got their own personal interests and values. It's natural to express and even vouch for them. If they aren't shared by enough other people, they probably won't make it to the top in a democracy. That's how it works and it's fine. But I don't get the idea that someone shouldn't express an opinion about X because lots of other people don't care about X.
  - NikolaNovak 3mo ago
    I agree ; that's the principle of democracy :) And it works both ways - people are allowed to care about something, express that, and others are allowed to not care about it, and express that :) (in this case, as I mentioned in sibling comment, I care about the same cause as well:).
pc86 3mo ago
You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad. I bet if you actually engage with the argument in good faith instead of dismissing your imaginary strawman there could be a good conversation! But no the GP disagrees with you, so is therefore a complete moron, so no discussion will be had I suppose. > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says > Please don't post shallow dismissals https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lucideer 3mo ago
  > You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad The GP did indeed seem to be arguing it's default-bad (though I note you didn't go off at them for this). The reply has said nothing about it being default-good: only that it's not necessarily default-bad. You're assuming a black-and-white binary & by extension you're seeing arguments that weren't made. There's nothing bad faith about the commenters post & assuming the role of a moderator in a discussion you're inventing phantom arguments in isn't doing you any favours.
butlike 3mo ago
I didn't take their comment like that. A brain surgeon doesn't excise a leg tumor the same way as you don't comment on things outside your wheelhouse.
iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
Not really. The issue is that even the basic current rules are not really enforced, because digital is somehow seen as more ephemeral and thus not real ( or at least, that is how it initially started ). We don't have to have new regulation. We just need to enforced basic existing standards. Buy means buy. Rent means rent. Lease means lease. All have their place. But this is not what is happening now. We have an ecosystem that mischaracterizes not just type the type of sale, but user's rights and obligations under it. All that is basically fraud. We just don't call it that. We call it innovation.
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
He's right though. There's no reason to add even more annoying laws. Just get rid of the existing ones that are causing the problem. Getting rid of just the DMCA's anti-circumvention nonsense would probably be sufficient to take care of this problem. Game stops working? You can make it work.
bshanks 3mo ago
If someone had said, "I am generally not opposed to regulation, but this is a place where I don't support it.", you could have replied to it in a similar fashion, but reversed.

by feoren 3mo ago

vanviegen 3mo ago

Though your point may have some value, your comment comes across as meanspirited and ad hominem. Also, regulation is not universally supported by knowledgeable consumers. Often quite the opposite, in fact.

nfw2 3mo ago
Mean spirited sure, ad hominem, no. It's satirizing the argument, not personal traits unrelated to the argument
- vanviegen 3mo ago
  I stand corrected.
- kybernetikos 3mo ago
  It's definitely a bad argument worthy of some sort of label. It seems to go "you believe this thing, which I won't engage with at all, but I'll assume that because of the way you said it, you also believe all this other stuff that I disagree with".
  - nfw2 3mo ago
    The term you are looking for is straw man
- zahlman 3mo ago
  No, satire would involve an attempt to pretend to make the same argument while exposing flaws. This was just a bunch of uncharitable strawmen.

alecsm 3mo ago

I understand his comment as being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress. But he would support a regulation for this because it's a violation against the property of the buyer.

datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
> being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress Does such strawman regulation even exist? Some regulation is intentionally designed to limit “progress”, where “progress” happens to have negative externalities. It’s kind of a self-legitimizing opinion. Of course anyone would be against unnecessary regulations. I think the real world is not arguing about whether a regulation is necessary, but rather if the economic burden it creates is worth the positive impact it has on society, which is highly contentious, highly subjective debate.
- braiamp 3mo ago
  Only the regulation that doesn't evolve with the time or written so that it stays within the confines of a context that doesn't exists. Certain big country constitution is a prime example of that.
- homer456 3mo ago
  It takes a minimum of 600 hours of training to get licensed to cut hair in California. Pex plumbing is banned in Chicago as a union protectionist regulation. The "chicken tax" regulation scheme has screwed up the US truck market for decades. Electrical code requirements for the wiring of kitchen islands have changed drastically with very small justification within a short span of time. To this day it is illegal to trade onion futures in Chicago due to an attempt to corner the market on onions decades ago(probably over a century can't be bothered to check). Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer. The affordable care act is written in such a way that the only way for insurers to increase their profit margin on health plans is to increase the cost they pay out to providers ("gold plating") CAFE fuel economy standards have lead to the arms race of increased vehicle sizes for unnecessary reasons.

protocolture 3mo ago

>All the oversight and regulation about everything you don't care and/or know about is big bad government overreach. I can literally list all the stupid regulation that needs to be removed from my industry. A lot of it is incredibly boneheaded. There's exactly 1 thing I do like, and it was extremely situational and set down in the 90s to avoid a very specific potential failure, and could easily be repealed without issue right now. I presume, based on the experience in an industry I am very familiar with, that at least 60% of the regulation put on other industries is likewise counter productive and boneheaded. And every now and then when I do a deep dive somewhere I tend to confirm that.

pseudocomposer 3mo ago

I think “when you buy a product, be it a game, a house, a car, a computer, a tractor, washer, TV, it should continue to operate without rent-seeking behavior” is the best type of straightforward, uniformly-applicable pattern of regulation one could hope for. Opposing rent-seeking is literally why we have American democracy, which paved the way for French, Brazilian, Canadian, Indian, Mexican and so many other democracies. Kings were the ultimate rent-seekers: every citizen was the product. It’s not like this is some special case. People make the exact same arguments against John Deere, Tesla, Apple etc. And it’s a major reason many understand we should favor local (or local-capable/open-weight) AI/LLMs. I think “for any product whose support is discontinued, with more than X users, either open source all relevant software and hardware schematics, or provide a binary that will work on the hardware in perpetuity without DRM checks, based on industry” is a miniscule request in the face of any of these industries. I’d say, for instance, weights for discontinued Claude and OpenAI versions would fit. And it’s exactly the type of problem (functioning) democracies are meant for.

airstrike 3mo ago
Hear, hear! One of the best comments I've read in over a decade on this site
Terr_ 3mo ago
Also: Those ownership/privacy obligations to customers should come first in bankruptcy proceedings, ahead of other debts. IANABankrupcyLawyer, but I believe the status-quo is that various promises like "we'll open-source the server in the end" or "we'll never sell your data" can become voided in the name of making a buck to repay the landlord or business-partner.
- account42 3mo ago
  I think the obligation should be transfer to the copyright holder in the case of bankruptcy. They can then choose to either make individual buyers whole or give up copyright protection.
  - 3mo ago

scubadude 3mo ago

[flagged]

recursivegirth 3mo ago
If buying isn't ownership, than piracy isn't stealing. Government can do what they want, but if they ain't for the people, I ain't for the Government.
- shapefrog 3mo ago
  It is still, as far as I am aware, possible to steal a rental car.
  - nullocator 3mo ago
    No one renting a car is being told they are buying it and walking (driving) away under the assumption that they have.

user3939382 3mo ago

You’re making an equally nebulous point, as if all govt regulation is good and overreach doesn’t exist by definition or something.

Frieren 3mo ago

You did a summary of conservative ideology. All laws should be abolished so I can do whatever I want, but laws should regulate everything I do not like and the punishment should be harsh. It is an ideology based in short-term self interest. It is the way toddlers think about the world before growing up. Laws should help to create a well functioning society where everybody can participate and benefit from it in a fair system. Regulations are part of a functional society. Digital ownership is not different from anything else. Regulate it correctly or the most powerful people will just take away everything from you.

Gravityloss 3mo ago
I think it's an accurate description of a common way of thinking, though I wouldn't call it conservative in the global sense. Another is some of the domestic manufacturing or hard tech movement people who present lofty ideals about jobs and sovereignty and so on. But there's a claim that when the surface is scratched a bit, it devolves into a want to keep their imported cheap input materials tax / toll free while introducing taxes and tolls to their foreign competitors' end products. I mean who would pay for domestic materials, they're much more expensive, there'd be no margin!
- rickdeckard 3mo ago
  > I think it's an accurate description of a common way of thinking, though I wouldn't call it conservative in the global sense. It's not a common way of thinking, not in my observation. Conservative / neo-liberal narratives push strongly against any form of "bigger picture view", more explicitly against solidarity, fueling this mindset of "I only support what profits me personally", i.e. "everyone's taxes should be used for roads (because I have a car), public transport is a waste of money (everyone should buy a car)". -> It's a vertical word-view, where others are seen either above you (appease them) or below you (disregard them, they should appease you) -- Liberal citizens still (try to) build on a sense of solidarity, of common investments for the "greater good" of a just (future) society, i.e. "I do have a car, but a stronger public transport system is a benefit to me and my peers" -> It's a horizontal world-view, where others are seen equal to you and people are much more willing to stand up for each other and unite their voice for a cause. -- I'm aware that this is not that visible in US, because there are only two major parties here, which both try to please the maximum of the middle spectrum. So both follow a rather conservative narrative and tend to pay lip-service only. In countries with more than two major political parties it's more visible because the "center-left" democratic party is also threatened by competition from the "left", not just from the "center-right"/"right" party, so they need to acknowledge that citizens raise DEMANDS to them and are willing to walk away if they are not met.

AnthonyMouse 3mo ago

> You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. That's not really it. The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute. It can't be the thing that saves you in the case where the government is prohibiting it. To put it another way, the thing that would really reduce regulations is to get rid of copyright, but maybe we want to be pragmatic here and instead of demanding that it be abolished entirely, we just want the prohibition the government is imposing on the users to not be extended through an unconscionable power grab and destroy the rights of First Sale and Fair Use that have always belonged to the customer.

michaelt 3mo ago
> The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute. Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends). To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example.
- AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
  > Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends). Which is not at all the same thing, not least because software has a network effect. It's like saying that a company having a monopoly on cars is fine because you can walk or take the bus. If your claim was actually true then copyright would have no purpose since "granting a monopoly" is its mechanism of operation. > To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example. How does that help you when the next game comes out, requiring a "Microsoft" account from the first day? The problem is inherently that you can't get the game from anyone -- even a used copy from an existing customer -- without subjecting yourself to the requirement you reject, or de facto being stripped of your rights under First Sale.

zahlman 3mo ago

This is an impressively uncharitable read of GP, and in my view totally uncalled for. People who "generally" oppose "regulation", in my experience, very often have very good reasons for having adopted that stance, that are rooted in examination (or at least knowledge) of several actually existing regulations. And I would hope we all agree that there are plenty of really bad regulations out there. (If not: I invite you to check out the book https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp... , and consider how this legal state of affairs could come about.) The entirely unfounded allegation of cronyism ("and the ones where you have friends that work there") is especially absurd. Where the guidelines say > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. this is the exact mechanism for "trampling curiousity" I imagine the site staff have in mind. Why would anyone who can offer you an alternative point of view, want to participate in an environment where responses read like this?

spauldo 3mo ago
I agree that the characterization was uncalled for in the post you replied to. But I don't agree with your statement that most people who generally oppose regulation have good reasons for doing so. Conservative media outlets have pushed that stance for decades now and it gets regurgitated all the time. Ask most of them what specific regulations they want to see gone and you'll get a blank stare.
feoren 3mo ago
I am criticizing a common pattern of thought that I observe, including in the post I responded to. "I'm against X in general, but in this case X is warranted" is a very dangerous thought process, and I believe a good way to try to dispel it is to ask "are all the special cases just ones that you understand and affect you personally, and all the 'in general' ones that you don't?". It doesn't need to be 100% accurate to be a good challenge of the thought pattern. Yes, there are really bad regulations out there. Some of them are well-intended but poorly thought out, but even more are regulatory capture that is enabled by the same "they're all bad anyway" attitude. Let's work on improving regulations. In my experience, the people who are "against regulation in general" are not the ones who are interested in improving the regulatory body as a whole, and in fact work directly against it. > The entirely unfounded allegation of cronyism ("and the ones where you have friends that work there") is especially absurd I was not accusing anyone of cronyism. I was saying that people who have friends who work at, say, USGS, probably talk about what they do and understand that they actually serve a useful function. I am challenging those people to consider the fact that perhaps agencies they've barely heard of also serve a useful function, and they would also support the existence of that agency if they had had conversations with people who work there. Cronyism has nothing to do with it, only familiarity, understanding, and a personal connection.

_heimdall 3mo ago

I can't speak for the GP obviously, but lumping together all regulation is a mistake. This would be a situation of having regulation protect our rights rather than limit them. That's a huge distinction and the former isn't particularly common today, more often than not if someone is raising concerns over a new regulation its because the regulation is limiting their rights.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

GaryBluto 3mo ago

[flagged]

NikolaNovak 3mo ago

Yes; and to make it extremely politically explosive, I do enjoy observing American politics and seeing each side (there are, brilliantly, two, because there ARE only two sides to every story and they neatly correlate with each other 100%:) massively enlarge the government, apply massive new restrictive regulations, but one side claims they don't do that because of somewhat specific types of massive government regulations and enlargements they do :) At its best, a government law/regulation/policy is people saying "Ouch, that hurt, let's not do THAT again!", or "Oooh, I like this, this is good for us, let's do more of THAT please!". At its worst, its self-preserving bureaucracy run rampant. Any oversimplifying platitude like "I'm against big government!" or "I'm against government regulation!" so tremendously lacks specifics as to be worse than worthless. And this is an extremely complicated issue which a tiny minority of people care about that'd be ridiculously over-complicated to implement with huge difficulty in tracking and enforcing! But because where we are, it resonates with us, and we on Hacker News feel it's an obvious and easy policy to apply :). You know, unlike the minor issues of war and peace and hunger and poverty and economics and minority rights et cetera :) 100 internet points and tip of a hat to you sir :)

Delk 3mo ago
> a tiny minority of people care about [...] You know, unlike the minor issues of war and peace and hunger and poverty and economics and minority rights et cetera :) The complexity and realism of some particular regulation aside, I honestly don't understand dismissing other people's opinions on the grounds that not a lot of people care about them. Should people not have an opinion because lots of other people don't share it? Or should those opinions just not be expressed? Everybody's got their own personal interests and values. It's natural to express and even vouch for them. If they aren't shared by enough other people, they probably won't make it to the top in a democracy. That's how it works and it's fine. But I don't get the idea that someone shouldn't express an opinion about X because lots of other people don't care about X.
- NikolaNovak 3mo ago
  I agree ; that's the principle of democracy :) And it works both ways - people are allowed to care about something, express that, and others are allowed to not care about it, and express that :) (in this case, as I mentioned in sibling comment, I care about the same cause as well:).

pc86 3mo ago

You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad. I bet if you actually engage with the argument in good faith instead of dismissing your imaginary strawman there could be a good conversation! But no the GP disagrees with you, so is therefore a complete moron, so no discussion will be had I suppose. > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says > Please don't post shallow dismissals https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lucideer 3mo ago
> You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad The GP did indeed seem to be arguing it's default-bad (though I note you didn't go off at them for this). The reply has said nothing about it being default-good: only that it's not necessarily default-bad. You're assuming a black-and-white binary & by extension you're seeing arguments that weren't made. There's nothing bad faith about the commenters post & assuming the role of a moderator in a discussion you're inventing phantom arguments in isn't doing you any favours.

butlike 3mo ago

I didn't take their comment like that. A brain surgeon doesn't excise a leg tumor the same way as you don't comment on things outside your wheelhouse.

iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago

Not really. The issue is that even the basic current rules are not really enforced, because digital is somehow seen as more ephemeral and thus not real ( or at least, that is how it initially started ). We don't have to have new regulation. We just need to enforced basic existing standards. Buy means buy. Rent means rent. Lease means lease. All have their place. But this is not what is happening now. We have an ecosystem that mischaracterizes not just type the type of sale, but user's rights and obligations under it. All that is basically fraud. We just don't call it that. We call it innovation.

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

He's right though. There's no reason to add even more annoying laws. Just get rid of the existing ones that are causing the problem. Getting rid of just the DMCA's anti-circumvention nonsense would probably be sufficient to take care of this problem. Game stops working? You can make it work.

bshanks 3mo ago

If someone had said, "I am generally not opposed to regulation, but this is a place where I don't support it.", you could have replied to it in a similar fashion, but reversed.