Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by p-e-w 43 days ago
I’d say that if Google suddenly stopped providing Gmail for free, destroying the primary means of communication for billions of people, governments would be justified in immediately nationalizing Google with no compensation.

Corporations aren’t magical entities that somehow exist outside of social obligations and can do whatever they want as long as their own terms of service permit it.
2 comments
BenjiWiebe 43 days ago
Maybe they could announce a pricing increase for a somewhat distant future date.

Maybe $1/month starting in 2 years, then increasing to $2/month for the next year, $3/month for the next, on until they feel they're covering costs.

That way it gives people time to look for alternative free providers, or time to get used to the idea of paying for email.

link
otterley 43 days ago
> Corporations aren’t magical entities that somehow exist outside of social obligations and can do whatever they want as long as their own terms of service permit it.

Where's your support for this statement in the law?

link
account42 43 days ago
The support is there by no constitution guaranteeing human-like rights for corporations, allowing lawmakers to restrict them however they see fit.
link
extraduder_ire 42 days ago
The rights of google's owners still apply though.
link
p-e-w 43 days ago
When push comes to shove, the law stops mattering, every time. That’s true for individual rights and it’s true for corporate entities too. The era where things like that don’t happen is a very small slice of human history that is currently coming to an end in real time all around the world. Not long ago, a government simply taking over a company was something that occurred quite regularly.
link
gpm 43 days ago
The existence of law itself is the only necessary support... Law is merely encoded social obligations that the government will enforce. That a single law constrains corporations in any way (and that is clearly the case) proves the statement.

In the broader context GP is clearly advocating for what the law should be, or should be changed to should certain events come to pass. Demanding support in existing law for a proposed change in law is nonsense if that's what you meant to do instead of narrowly discussing the nearly vaccuously true quote you pulled out.

link
kelipso 43 days ago
People can actually make new laws. Happens all the time.
link