Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mcpackieh 932 days ago
> Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation".

Literally, so what? I don't understand your point. You can't be under the impression that all laws must be popular with all people, so what does it matter if some ancrap libertarians complain about it? This shouldn't stop the implementation of such laws.
1 comments
acdha 932 days ago
It’s more than “so what” because those people aren’t coming from nowhere. American businesses spend a lot of money promoting libertarianism to this end, and it’s been effective enough that any reforms will face unified opposition from every Republican in Congress and likely some Democrats. Most of these are minority positions in the public but not in terms of legislative votes.
link
randomdata 932 days ago
> American businesses spend a lot of money promoting libertarianism to this end

American businesses would be the first one crying if they had to operate in a libertarian environment. In reality, they spend a lot of money to ensure heavy regulation that allows them to build moats.

link
acdha 932 days ago
They’re pretty fond of disclaiming obligations and not being sued in real courts, though. The key thing is recognizing that most of the libertarian media exists to serve the funders’ interests, not to promote a coherent ideology.
link
randomdata 932 days ago
What media is seen as holding a libertarian ideology? That is not a common bias. I do see the "consumers should have more choice" bent that you seem to be talking about more prevalently, but that's something quite different.
link
acdha 931 days ago
There’s a pipeline you can see when they’re workshopping ideas where things start at some think tank or other very openly ideological organization and moves through Reason, TNR, Fox, on to the WSJ and NYT where at each level the issue is pitched as more of a “lots of people are talking” kind of phenomenon detached from the source.

A really good example of this happened a decade ago when you started seeing these public reconsiderations where an NYT oped or someone on a Sunday news show was asking whether Rachel Carson was responsible for increased numbers of Africans dying from malaria. If you didn’t follow it before then, it looked like an organic discussion reconsidering whether an environmental success has unintended consequences.

If you had followed it, however, it was actually funded by the tobacco companies as part of an attack against public health agencies. They started with places like their lobbyist’s blog, got traction in the libertarian / right-wing blogosphere, then Reason, then the unabashed right-wing media, etc. until the more mainstream media felt the need to cover this story “everyone” was talking about:

https://www.wired.com/story/ddt-battle-scientific-skepticism...

https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospe...

It’s not uncommon to find that cycle behind “runaway government” news stories where the mainstream coverage doesn’t mention that someone’s full-time job was pitching that story to reporters.

link