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

121–130 of 176 posts

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

#121

Post by Barrin92 »

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?

Replace them frequently and have them assemble in a place without outside influence for the duration of decision making, essentially like a jury.

I mean if you really wanted to get futuristic about it you could even have a sort of crypto sortition where everyone is completely anonymous and representatives don't even know each others identity.

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

#123

Post by CamperBob2 »

TchoBeer wrote: post #99
MichaelZuo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure of the U.S. government was explicitly designed to be anti majoritarian. For many people, in fact probably the majority of the population this is a feature.

The ability for a small number of extremely wealthy people to dictate what laws should not be passed is not protection of the minority, and if it was intended by the founders (which in some ways it was, though not in the form it takes today) then it should be opposed.

The problem is, when the majority rules, the result is inevitably a shitshow.

The founders understood that, which is why they set things up the way they did. Nothing has changed since then. If anything it's even more true, given the new and extensive ways the elites have to manipulate majority opinion.

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

#124

Post by LookReally »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #42
QuillPen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By passing a new law, termed a "chapter amendment". These are agreed upon by the governor and the legislature in advance of the governor's signature and passed and signed rapidly thereafter.

Do you have a link to the text of this 'chapter amendment'?

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/a1285 I believe it's actually already passed both the assembly + senate.

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

#125

Post by LookReally »

klyrs wrote: post #6
rom-antics wrote: post #3

So last time this story made the rounds, the legislature had passed the bill. Then the mayor signed it into law - but not before adding some legalese that roughly amounted to "just kidding lol". Afaik nobody could explain why it was legal for the mayor to add arbitrary language without legislative oversight. Has anyone dove in to figure out how that happened?

According to the article, the state Senate has not approved the changes yet, so it is not yet law.

I think the article is incorrect on this point. The NY assembly and senate have both passed the bill that contains the changes: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/a1285 It hasn't yet been signed by the governor though.

I live in NY and actually reached out to both my state senator and assemblyperson multiple times in opposition to this follow up bill. I never received a substantive reply.

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

#126

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

jmugan wrote: post #77
indymike wrote: post #33

Laws are written in the US by the people who have time to write them: interns or lobbyists. Being a legislator is a crappy job where you have little time between fundraising and voting to read the laws you vote on, let alone write them. If you want to make a change, show up and meet in person with state and federal legislators. And if you think, "there outght to be a law" get one written with the help of a few lawyer…

My understanding is that you can't "show and meet with" them unless you are already a significant donor.

That's not entirely true. It's more like if you are a significant donor your name is always going first on the schedule of meetings for that day. Local constituents will usually get scheduled over and over again until some random 15-min block that the politician usually just glazes over for. They will meet with you if whatever your issues is directly affects their ability to fundraise though.

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

#127

Post by BurningFrog »

pdonis wrote: post #44
comte7092 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

> it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. You say this as if anti majoritarian is a bug. It's not. It's a feature. The US system is supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority. That's why there are checks and balances in it. That's why the Constitution limits the powers of the branches of government, and why further limits were put in place in the Bill of Rights. The US system is not supposed…

But these rules are only 10-20 years old. They're not part of the original intent you talk about.

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

#128

Post by PathOfEclipse »

TchoBeer wrote: post #99
MichaelZuo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure of the U.S. government was explicitly designed to be anti majoritarian. For many people, in fact probably the majority of the population this is a feature.

The ability for a small number of extremely wealthy people to dictate what laws should not be passed is not protection of the minority, and if it was intended by the founders (which in some ways it was, though not in the form it takes today) then it should be opposed.

I think where the founders got it wrong is not expecting the population to be so ignorant and easily swayable. For instance, school voucher measures, which would benefit so many people, tend to get shut down due to lobbying efforts from rich and powerful teacher's unions: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/11/13/teach...

If people were wiser and did their research better, these kinds of campaigns would be ineffective and the rich would lose their sway.

The founders also probably didn't expect our government to grow so large and so corrupt. The richest and most corrupt entity in the United States is the government itself. The vast majority of the government is not even beholden to people at all in any way, shape, or form. This includes the tens of thousands of employees in the federal bureaucracies, as well as organizations like teacher's unions who are funded indirectly by tax dollars. Many, if not all, monopolies today are also artificially created by government policy, allowing for an unholy union of corporations and the government.

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

#129

Post by carabiner »

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.

But at least we can talk about it! /s

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

#130

Post by gruez »

Barrin92 wrote: post #121
gruez wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Replace them frequently and have them assemble in a place without outside influence for the duration of decision making, essentially like a jury. I mean if you really wanted to get futuristic about it you could even have a sort of crypto sortition where everyone is completely anonymous and representatives don't even know each others identity.

> Replace them frequently and have them assemble in a place without outside influence for the duration of decision making, essentially like a jury.

A jury also gets to hear arguments from both the prosecution and the defense. For complex trials this can last weeks/months. Presumably for the "jury" legislature that you propose, you'd want lobbyists/bureaucrats to plead their case. How do you prevent them from being hoodwinked by the lobbyists/bureaucrats? If you think that they shouldn't be able to hear arguments from lobbyists/bureaucrats, how do you prevent them from coming up with absolutely braindead policies like "haha tax cuts/spending go brrr"?

Post reply on HN