Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

techcrunch.com

181–190 of 286 posts

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.) If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line. I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both…

You appear to be suggesting a variation on the Nuremberg defense. "Your honor, I'm not evil! I was just following orders... errr.. I mean I had a responsibility to my shareholders!" I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously.

> I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously.

That usually happens when you invoke Godwin.

How about you put it this way - we'll use the RIAA as an example, but lots of companies support SOPA for many reasons: A bunch of CEOs employ thousands (tens of thousands?) of people and see that their primary modern-day asset - copyrighted music - is in grave jeopardy. They know that modern technology makes this asset increasingly hard to control, and that unlike in the vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and early CD eras, they can longer create artificial scarcity as they once did.

They know that if that threat continues to grow as it does, they can't provide distribution as an asset to artists, which used to be a big reason you signed with a major label. That means they have to scale their operations back in a big way, which means letting a lot of people go and less profit (CDs sales actually are still a profitable business). Since they firmly believe in the protections copyright affords, and they've worked in this industry a long time, they see the better approach to be attacking the copyright infringement. And their job is to keep their company running the best they can. Now is it so surprising they consider the second option?

They may or may not understand that SOPA endangers many aspects of how the internet works. But they aren't necessarily acting in bad faith just because they support SOPA.

I know the niche hacker news fills is particularly well-targeted by SOPA, and that can lead to a circlejerk like any other online community with common beliefs, but it's harmful to discourse to assume those who you disagree with you on SOPA are inherently evil as a result. That's why Godwin is such a joke - it's almost never an appropriate analogy to compare your opponents in a {political,religious,technology,etc} debate to those who participate in genocide.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#182
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor tangent here that's not relevant to your main point - what exactly is wrong with trying to dispose of toxic waste in a "semi-competent" manner? Lead, mercury, asbestos, and all those other freaky things have got to go somewhere . Shouldn't you be more pissed off at people generating that waste?

I think semi-competent there was probably supposed to mean "less competent than average", not "more competent than average".

Well for me at least the cask is half-full, not half-empty.

That's just the kind of guy I am.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#183
post #142

The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position. Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their posi…

I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it. Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith. DWT has tweeted about…

Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list.

Riiiight.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#184
post #142

The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position. Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their posi…

I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it. Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith. DWT has tweeted about…

Update: ALL the law firms have been removed from the list.

http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of...

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#185
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it. Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith. DWT has tweeted about…

Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Riiiight.

I believe them. Once upon a time I worked as a legislative aid in the WI State Senate. I saw this type of thing happen a few times where some overzealous lobbyist or staffer fudged the list of supporters for some controversial legislation. Predictably it always resulted in a gigantic shitstorm. Beats me why they try to get away with it in the first place.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no evidence to indicate this is the popular working definition of faith for the religious.

I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious. But most of us have had experiences we interpret as God having taken care of us, and instances where even when we suffered pain, it seems like someone was looking out for us and making sure stuff turned out well. I phrase this conservatively because I'm aware of the possibility of assigning motive to events that were actually "happenstance", assumin…

"I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious."

I was. Believe me, I was....

Anyway, if you ask someone "How do you know god exists?" and they respond "Because I have faith." or whatever, they are not using the "assurance based on a reliable track record." definition. Prior track record of what? God existing?

In actuality, people use faith to describe the reason they believe in things despite no evidence. When they believe that they have "evidence" the answer to the question tends to be something along the lines of "I _know_ that god exists because...".

I find it hard to believe the majority of religious people are even aware of that greek word/meaning.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence " I'm not a professional scientist but as a wannabe theoretician I can't concede how this can be correct. Indeed I think it needs to be wrong often in order for experiment to progress from theory. I'd warrant that the LHC was only built because those theoreticians at the forefront of physical advances in particle physics at Fermilab and CERN (a…

Ideally, one adopts a hypothesis specifically to prove it false, not because one is sure it is true. Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it. This is not the faith in science you are looking for.

I've generally found that the expected mechanism comes first; an opposing hypothesis to falsify comes after. With complex scenarios it's can be necessary to develop in depth the consequential outcomes before one can find something that can readily be demonstrated empirically.

How do you determine otherwise which experiments are worth performing. We don't have infinite resources.

For example. Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1916 having worked, apparently, on it for 8 years. Do you suppose he worked on it because he believed it false? One of the outcomes of the theory was then first observationally confirmed by Eddington's observations of an eclipse in 1919.

Up until 1919 Einstein and other's put much faith in the theory by using it to model reality without knowing if it's predictions would be observed without falsification.

I'm all for Popperian falsification as the modus of formal scientific advance but on an individual level it appears to me that those who work for many years on unconfirmed theories are often believing in the truth of those theories without empirical confirmation.

>"Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it."

Moreover, it strikes me that one could not put faith in anything (the love of your mother say) if it were prevented by the possibility that later evidence would force you to discard it. That statement also appears contrary to the illustration I've given concerning GR too.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#188
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Riiiight.

I believe them. Once upon a time I worked as a legislative aid in the WI State Senate. I saw this type of thing happen a few times where some overzealous lobbyist or staffer fudged the list of supporters for some controversial legislation. Predictably it always resulted in a gigantic shitstorm. Beats me why they try to get away with it in the first place.

If the legislation doesn't pass a certain threshold of controversy, they probably get away with it.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#189
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash. I consider them un-American traitors.

>"There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash."

Do you have to be US American to hold stock in these companies? Do you expect international companies to have a nationality?

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Occupy" movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage. I think a traditional, well-organized, on-message movement against SOPA would do a lot better than throwing in with OWS.

Expressions of incoherent rage have fuelled the majority of social change in history.

My conclusion after learning European history for the first time was that revolutions don't happen until people are starving.
Post reply on HN