8 ms·
" If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life." This is exactly what I immediately thought while reading
by illegalmemory 2y ago
" If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life."
This is exactly what I immediately thought while reading the article. It almost feels like the legal system only punishes general public, while most of these guys are above it.
- G_o_D 2y agoMoney speaks ! Money buys !
- rahton 2y agoThe legal system is built to favor large corps and capital owners. See Katharina Pistor books for instance.
- cheschire 2y agoI think it’s the other way around. Those large entities break all the same laws and rules as others and then get to the point where they can influence the creation of a regulatory moat around themselves to prevent competitors from taking the same path as them.
- ttoinou 2y agoTrue but lets take examples one by one to see what we can learn : Spotify was doing illegal things until they made a deal to become legal and not to be trialed over what they done. Seems like business deals is what saved them, not regulatory capture (the regulations around IP for music pre existed Spotify)
- cheschire 2y agoSure that is what saved them initially, but following that early 2010’s period of hemorrhaging money and eventual recovery, then they started digging that moat. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/spotify-washington-lobbying-firms-117001 https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/spotify-washington-lo... https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/issues?cycle=2015&id=D000068647&spec=CPT&specific_issue=Copyright%2C+Patent+%26+Trademark https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/issues?...
- ttoinou 2y agoVery interesting thank you for the links. I'm not knowledgeable in the Music Modernization Act, but maybe some of this lobbying is to avoid being sued rather than building legal long term moat
- TeMPOraL 2y agoSame would be the case for YouTube. Google case was different in that AFAIK there wasn't any obvious legal problem with indexing, and, back then, they were actually doing everyone a favor. Hardly anyone had any issue with Google search until the time when news media screwed themselves over by going all in on ads, overdoing it, then trying to bring back the paywall, only to realize no one is actually browsing their sites but instead relies on Google to find specific articles. All kinds of legal and technical nonsense started happening (and then Google improved the blurbs under search results and added the "answer box", leading publishers big and small to collectively lose their minds...).
- nayuki 2y agoAnd then news media in Canada got even worse a few years ago. They demanded the government make a law so that when Google or Facebook even links to an article, they must pay the news org. Google decided to pay the link tax. Facebook decided to block all news links. From talking to people, most think that Facebook is the villain, in reality it's the news orgs in collusion with state power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_News_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_News_Act , https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_1.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_...
- gardnr 2y agoThen Facebook complied with the new law which had negative outcomes for Canadians. The politicians then blamed Facebook for the negative outcomes: https://www.wired.com/story/meta-facebook-instagram-news-block-canada-wildfire/ https://www.wired.com/story/meta-facebook-instagram-news-blo... I do believe that large companies should be taxed to help improve society. This law was not the right way to do it.
- Workaccount2 2y agoI guess I sort of understand where this idea comes from, and when I was young I was totally into it, but now being in the corporate world for a decade and having my own small business, I just don't really see it anymore. Big corps tend to be extremely conscientious of the the law. The law may not be ideal, but they tend to be hyper aware of it and have lawyers to ensure it. Small companies on the other hand are the wild fucking west, and tend to be overflowing with "turn a blind eye to that". What big corps love is regulation that is expensive for small shops to overcome. They can drop $500k on a product cert no problem, be legally in the clear (and graciously compliant!), while making it near impossible for small guys to compete.
- isaacremuant 2y agoIt doesn't "seem". The entire system in most countries works, by design, that way because the people in power trade in influence at a different plane. That's why democracy often feels "failed" in that no change can be achieved because "it's just more of the same". Few Lobbyists representing the interests of a few people have more power than millions voting differently.
- vladms 2y agoWhat happens in US right now shows that change is achieved through voting. There are other examples as well in Europe where things did change because of how people voted. If the change is good or bad depends on your perspective. For me the annoying part is that people vote for a guy because of a couple heavily advertised issues, ignoring all the other plans or the fact that he might not keep his word. Then they are unhappy that things "fail" for them.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoIt's unclear yet whether anything will really change. It is a perfect example though of how the rich are above the law.
- daedrdev 2y agoUSAID has already been shut down
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoWhat I mean is that people are going to sue, and they will go to the courts. It's unclear how much will really stick.
- brookst 2y agoI like your optimistic take. My more cynical one is that what’s happening in the US shows that real change is achieved through corruption and lying: honest policy discussions and iterative improvement stand no chance against a charismatic populist who will say anything to entrench an oligarchy.
- veggieroll 2y agoWilhoit’s law: > There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoIs that a prescriptive or descriptive law?
- qup 2y agoHe left out part of the quote, which is misappropriated as well. Wikipedia: > This quotation is often incorrectly attributed to Francis M. Wilhoit: > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. > However, it was actually a 2018 blog response by 59-year-old Ohio composer Frank Wilhoit, years after Francis Wilhoit's death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit
- diogocp 2y agoA restatement of Orwell's "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". The irony must have been lost on him.
- TZubiri 2y agoLol, that's clearly a descriptive law/maxim not an actual law.
- jamesbfb 2y agoRIP Aaron
- rchaud 2y agoAirbnb and Uber have showed us that laws matter only to the extent that the political will to enforce them exists. Throw enough lawyers and lobbying money at the problem and the laws can simply be re-written to be friendlier to your business model.
- DebtDeflation 2y agoThe reason there was no political will to punish Airbnb and Uber for violating the law was that initially they were subsidized with VC money and so were able to undercut traditional hotels and taxis on price. In the world of tradable goods, pricing below cost with the intent of putting competition out of business so you can raise prices later is known as "dumping" and is itself illegal.
- buran77 2y agoThe reason is that everyone who was supposed to do something about it was "subsidized with VC money".
- grepfru_it 2y agoOr in Ubers case, used to actively hinder those doing the investigation
- mapt 2y agoIs it? Really? Or is it just "illegal" for an overseas competitor to a domestic industry, in trade disputes? What is the fine? How many days in jail does the company spend? What portion is its stock diluted by? We remember the tale of Jeff Bezouis the Wise, who tragically lost his company when he decided he didn't want to buy diapers.com at the offered price, and instead wanted to dump 200 million dollars into selling diapers well below cost until their site folded.
- hammock 2y agoYou're right. Dumping refers to international trade. I believe parent commenter was thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
- censorfree 2y ago>This is exactly what I immediately thought while reading the article. It almost feels like the legal system only punishes general public, while most of these guys are above it. Welcome to the modern day aristocracy. Not only what you mentioned, this world is also divided into a group of insider who can get capital from 0 - 2%, while rest of us has a cost of 17%, 22% or 30%?
- jeffwask 2y agoWelcome to the two-tier legal system of the modern world. Why obey the law when the penalty is a rounding error?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ossobuco 2y agoIt's an oligarchy, always has been. I don't know how colossal the pile of evidence supporting this has to get before people finally accept it.
- 52-6F-62 2y agoThey are paid, handsomely, by it. Or otherwise brainwashed by it. And pummelled into ignorance by it, as they are told that to understand is stupid or delusional, knowledge ends at STEM, and the world only exists for efficient production of capital products. The poets write laments about such false ages. Prophecies were written about such ages thousands of years ago. The cycles are larger than us all. One stable insight is that the chaos breeds possibility, and thus hope. In the meantime, however…
- rixed 2y agoConscious life in general seems possible to me unless our brain tells us a better story than reality. A story in which we are the hero, in which we are not mortal, in which we are important, in which people care about us, in which we are intelligent and our perceptions rarely fail us, in which our life has a meaning and also in which the social game we play is determined, or at least influenced, by some just principles. We would despair if we were aware of the full extent of our meaninglessness and powerlessness. I believe that it is the core reason why we love to believe that God/Nature is good, that the king is legitimate and that the laws are fair.
- meeech 2y agoAt this point, I think it's safe to say it doesn't 'feel' that way. It is that way. Sorry if you were being facetious and I didn't pick up on it.
- gscott 2y agoIt is more a money thing. Meta can pay x billion like pocket change. Regular people are run through the ringer to teach the plebs to not get out of line.
- jmount 2y agoThey may have just been the friendly step A. We didn't end up seeing where that was going to go.
- nico 2y ago> the legal system only punishes general public, while most of these guys are above it It’s because the legal system is not about justice, it’s about money Most people can’t afford lawyers or expensive legal battles On the other hand, individuals and organizations with a lot of money get to weaponize and exploit the legal system to their advantage “To my friends, anything; to my enemies, the law”
- btown 2y agoAt the risk of wading into politics - consider a legal environment, in any country, where laws become increasingly strict, but where prosecutorial discretion, pardon powers, and a justice system designed to allow well-resourced law firms to delay cases indefinitely, are all transparently used for political purposes. Such an environment could easily exhibit a feedback loop that allows justice to be arbitrary and opposition voices to be silenced. I'll refrain from value judgments on the above - but for heaven's sake, we're on a site called "Hacker News." We should understand that a machine like this could turn on any one of us in an instant for any reason.
- devwastaken 2y agoif you get a group of people and call it an llc then criminal elements are largely eliminated.
- bmitc 2y agoIt's not a feeling. It's exactly what happens. It's completely blatant. For some reason, whenever you're a billionaire or company, things suddenly get so difficult that you can claim that it's impossible to be held accountable for anything. Murder, insider trading, laundering, treason, etc. OpenAI complained about this, as did Google and everyone else. If your company can't exist without stealing data, then it's not a viable company. Companies don't have a constitutional right to exist.
- TZubiri 2y agoHow so? It is still illegal if meta does it, they will face trial.
- yoyohello13 2y agoIt's not "almost" like that. The legal system IS that.
- kordlessagain 2y agoWhen individuals are assigned heroic status despite clear evidence of mental illness and crimes, such as “breaking and entering”, it prevents society from having rational discussions about both law enforcement and mental health support. This dynamic repeats across multiple high-profile cases. People often elevate deeply flawed figures to heroic status when those figures seem to challenge authority or "the system." This happens especially with individuals who present themselves as outsiders fighting the establishment, have a compelling personal struggle narrative, or voice grievances that resonate with public frustrations Trump fits this pattern - his supporters overlook concerning behaviors and statements because they see him as fighting a system they distrust. Like Manning and Swartz, his mental state and fitness are often ignored in favor of the "hero against the system" narrative. This dynamic creates a feedback loop where legitimate criticism becomes harder to discuss rationally.
- jimmySixDOF 2y ago> MIT I think Aaron Swartz went to Harvard, not MIT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
- xemoka 2y agoYes, he went to Harvard; the laptop was plugged in at MIT using his Harvard Fellow credentials to access JSTOR.
- quaintdev 2y agoI read the same thing earlier today on Reddit, weird!
- arp242 2y agoIf you do something wrong then you, as a person, are held responsible and accountable. If you do something wrong as "part of your job" then you're typically not held responsible and accountable but the company is (the exceptions being spectacular fraud: Enron, VW diesel). It's not hard to see how this can go off the rails.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago“The revolution will be incorporated.”
- artyom 2y ago> the legal system only punishes general public. In more general terms, the legal system punishes what can be made a profit or an example when punishing. Also, I don't think the legal system itself wants to get too much into "big institutions against the work of others", save for the fictional TV representations of smart lawyers and clever arguments, 99.9% of the legal system output is copy/paste.
- bayindirh 2y agoAs Venus Theory elaborates the issue on his video [0]: "This problem will be solved in the favor of the (party) which has the most money to throw into the problem" (paraphrase mine). So, yeah. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrkAORPiaEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrkAORPiaEA
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]