Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 176 posts

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#111

Post by Aunche »

tines wrote: post #87
0110101001 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The authors of that study started by filtering down a giant list of survey responses to those where there's a significant difference in responses between the "donor class" and everyone else. I forget exactly how often that happened, but it's a small number. So, just in the premise the study, by needing to throw away almost all the survey responses where everyone agrees and get the policies what they want, actually go…

> The authors of that study started by filtering down a giant list of survey responses to those where there's a significant difference in responses between the "donor class" and everyone else. I forget exactly how often that happened, but it's a small number. > So, just in the premise the study, by needing to throw away almost all the survey responses where everyone agrees and get the policies what they want, actuall…

>Help me understand, it sounds like you're saying that "when the poor people agree with the rich people, everyone gets what they want and democracy is proved to be healthy, nevermind that when they disagree, the rich people get what they want anyway."

Not the GP, but I think that the interests of the general public are actually much more closely aligned with those of "the elite" far more than people would like to believe. If for 90% of the issues the elite are just as likely to disagree amongst themselves than with the general public, it would be absurd to conclude that "democracy is a sham."

When Roe v. Wade got overturned, a lot of people on the internet were proclaiming this was an act by "the elite" who want cheap workers. In reality, virtually every billionaire who has a vocal opinion on abortion is pro-choice, and several have donated hundreds of millions towards the cause.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#112

Post by dtx1 »

tootie wrote: post #56
comte7092 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Princeton study actually showed that when it comes to advancing policies, it was pretty much a wash. Their difference came in when looking at getting policies blocked . If a policy was unpopular with economic elites, they were effective at getting it shut down. It’s an important distinction, because there’s a clear way to see what causes this behavior. There are a myriad of ways that our systems make it easy to b…

If you click through to the (much better) article on The Markup, you can see that the lobbying group strongly advocating killing the bill entirely and apparently thought they had succeeded until was voted through and signed. Their request for revisions to be based on some genuine concerns that being obligated to sell every component off-the-shelf means they are telling competitors (and counterfeiters) exactly how to…

Nope, thats what they want you to believe. It was always only about making the dame parts and schematics available that their own repair people habe access to

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#113

Post by Xeoncross »

user3939382 wrote: post #7

I’ll remind everyone of the Princeton study that proved our democracy is a sham. Policy outcomes are almost exclusively the product of the preferences of economic elites, not of the People. If you do get a legislative outcome you wanted it’s a coincidence that some big power’s agenda accidentally aligned with your own.

Study: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#114

Post by Xeoncross »

twblalock wrote: post #104
vivekd wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Isn't there a pretty obvious distinction between the interest and desires of the mass of people vs the interests of powerful special interest groups like corporations and the very wealthy. I mean we have no problem looking at historical society and drawing a distinction between nobility and the masses. Why does that logic fall apart in modern day societies

Populists would love to convince you that "the elites" and "the people" are distinct groups that are pitted against each other in an eternal struggle. They do this in many cases to convince "the people" to adopt radical fringe views. In the past (and present!) this false narrative has been used to push mostly bad things: nativism, xenophobia, and really dumb economic policy. By falling for this false distinction you…

this is a non-answer unfortunately

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#115

Post by tines »

Aunche wrote: post #111
tines wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The authors of that study started by filtering down a giant list of survey responses to those where there's a significant difference in responses between the "donor class" and everyone else. I forget exactly how often that happened, but it's a small number. > So, just in the premise the study, by needing to throw away almost all the survey responses where everyone agrees and get the policies what they want, actuall…

>Help me understand, it sounds like you're saying that "when the poor people agree with the rich people, everyone gets what they want and democracy is proved to be healthy, nevermind that when they disagree, the rich people get what they want anyway." Not the GP, but I think that the interests of the general public are actually much more closely aligned with those of "the elite" far more than people would like to bel…

> Not the GP, but I think that the interests of the general public are actually much more closely aligned with those of "the elite" far more than people would like to believe. If for 90% of the issues the elite are just as likely to disagree amongst themselves than with the general public, it would be absurd to conclude that "democracy is a sham."

Sure, that may or may not be true, but we're discussing a study that claims that when the two groups disagree, the smaller one wins.

> When Roe v. Wade got overturned, a lot of people on the internet were proclaiming this was an act by "the elite" who want cheap workers. In reality, virtually every billionaire who has a vocal opinion on abortion is pro-choice, and several have donated hundreds of millions towards the cause.

RvW was overturned by the supreme court, but I think the effect we're discussing applies to laws enacted by the legislature. This article references the paper: https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-d...

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#116

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

ajago wrote: post #94
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, but it does not seem like a useful thing to do. Do we blame hammer makers for making better hammers?

I think a better analogy would be do we blame weapons manufacturers for making better weapons? Or, do we blame black hats for making better viruses?

Sure, but the point remains the same and it does not really change the validity of the argument itself. Weapons manufacturers have one goal and that one goal is satisfied by creating a better weapon. Even viruses have found somewhat unexpected uses ( stuxnet comes to mind ).

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#117

Post by nmeagent »

rqtwteye wrote: post #108
RajT88 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawmakers have started saying it pretty plainly: https://gizmodo.com/1850096865 > “We had every environmental group walking supporting this bill,” Fahy told Grist. “What hurt this bill is Big Tech was opposed to it.” > A broad coalition of manufacturers opposed the bill in the spring, and its sponsors had to make significant compromises in order to pass it. “We made a lot of changes to get it over the finish line in…

The whole process would be fine if the legislators listened to all lobbyists. But realistically they only listen to the lobbyists who bring in the most money.

I don't think the process will ever be fine until lobbyists have nothing to offer legislators besides the merits of their arguments. As long as corporations can make financial contributions to legislators' campaigns, the system is cursed.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#118

Post by twblalock »

Xeoncross wrote: post #114
twblalock wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Populists would love to convince you that "the elites" and "the people" are distinct groups that are pitted against each other in an eternal struggle. They do this in many cases to convince "the people" to adopt radical fringe views. In the past (and present!) this false narrative has been used to push mostly bad things: nativism, xenophobia, and really dumb economic policy. By falling for this false distinction you…

this is a non-answer unfortunately

No, it’s a very clear answer: the elite-people distinction is mostly false, therefore populism operates on a false premise.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#119

Post by tkanarsky »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #81
christkv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more and more convinced that parliament or congress by lottery would be more representative and functional as well as the death of all political parties as they exist today.

I used to joke that, but each day makes me think it may actually do some good even if it will introduce some chaos to the process.

Stochastic democracy!

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#120

Post by flangola7 »

gruez wrote: post #105
christkv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more and more convinced that parliament or congress by lottery would be more representative and functional as well as the death of all political parties as they exist today.

How do you prevent the representatives, who are laymen with no political experience from being captured by career bureaucrats and/or lobbyists?

You could get a few people who are immune to power seeking and thus would never end up holding office otherwise.
Post reply on HN