101–110 of 132 posts
Is there a formal name to describe incumbents pushing for regulations in order to keep out new competitors? Something more specific than just “anti-competitive, monopolistic,” etc. This seems like such a common tactic that I’d expect there to be academic studies about it.
Regulatory capture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cookie consent law followed a similar path: A lot of people saw the proposals and assumed it would only hurt the websites they didn’t like. Then the laws passed and now almost every website you visit comes with an annoying cookie pop-up. I’m baffled by all the HN comments from people who think this will only apply to websites they don’t use. No, it’s going to become a miserable burden on the entire internet if it…
Can't sign up without a credit card, credit cards are issued to folks 18 and over. This is how they've done it up until this point (with little success). Making a "know your user" law like banking, no one will want to deal with the hassle and so only corporations (with big pockets to spend on this kind of Deloitte BS) will be able to compete on the internet. It's a travesty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointing at kids is incredibly effective tool, no wonder it's utilized so often. There is already growing momentum outside of flyover states and outside of social media, gaming platforms now are encouraged quite heavily to implement severe age verification systems, out of fear of being sued or having to deal with COPPA issues. Further, people will likely embrace any bills that encourage a standardized "encrypted" gov…
I also started using the Internet when I was around 10, in the mid-90s I suspect Generative AI will accelerate the transition to real ID There’s a new impetus to be able to tell who is real from who is not online Younger me would probably be angry and disappointed at how I have all but accepted that it’s going to happen one way or another
making faking identity proofs harder to fake?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cookie consent law followed a similar path: A lot of people saw the proposals and assumed it would only hurt the websites they didn’t like. Then the laws passed and now almost every website you visit comes with an annoying cookie pop-up. I’m baffled by all the HN comments from people who think this will only apply to websites they don’t use. No, it’s going to become a miserable burden on the entire internet if it…
Can't sign up without a credit card, credit cards are issued to folks 18 and over. This is how they've done it up until this point (with little success). Making a "know your user" law like banking, no one will want to deal with the hassle and so only corporations (with big pockets to spend on this kind of Deloitte BS) will be able to compete on the internet. It's a travesty.
This is not 100% true.
A child can have a credit card as long as they have an adult co-signer. A child can also be an authorized user on an adult's credit account and be issued their own card.
I didn't have a credit card myself as a child, but I DO know a few people who did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another reason why a simple ID which only purpose is being an ID might be useful. No more non-driver drivers licenses
A lot of people do get those currently, just ID cards for non-drivers, also issued through the DMV. Adults need them for various things like voting, food stamps, etc. But I've never heard of a child needing an ID card (aside from travelling abroad), although they could probably (?) get one if they needed - maybe they don't issue them to people under 18 cause there hasn't been any need
You've never heard of a child needing an ID? Really?
When I was a teenager, teenagers were expecting to earn an income and contribute some of that income to family expenses. To get a job you need and ID and working papers. You got both from the DMV.
Is the idea of a summer job really that outrageous nowadays?
I'm baffled by the general lack of absolute outrage around these recent bills requiring government issued ID to use the internet. Most of the comments here are discussing irrelevant nuances like "oh, well it seems to only apply to platforms above a certain size," while ignoring the atrocity that these bills represent for the freedoms and privacy that we've all taken for granted up until now. Get your bloody hands off…
The cookie consent law followed a similar path: A lot of people saw the proposals and assumed it would only hurt the websites they didn’t like. Then the laws passed and now almost every website you visit comes with an annoying cookie pop-up. I’m baffled by all the HN comments from people who think this will only apply to websites they don’t use. No, it’s going to become a miserable burden on the entire internet if it…
Nice, Another MOAT added to social media platforms. Big platforms like Facebook can spend a lot of money complying with the "law" whereas the startups disrupting it will die.
Its an anti-moat, since it is crafted to apply only to a few leading platforms, and specifically excludes any platform with less than $100 million in current annual revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Further, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism? This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.
When your whole political system depends on donations from large corporations, the government becomes in service of capitalism. Sure a failure of government but when you have built every incentives to promote those behaviours, the opposite would be surprising. Many countries ban donations from companies, doesn't let companies pay for politicians ads, etc. Doesn't mean it's perfect, government rely on jobs from compan…
Hmm, outrage sounding yet devoid of any meaning. No wonder populism is trendy. It invokes anger in people without viable solution.
Corruption exists all over the world regardless of political or economy system. If donation cannot be done legally, and documented, it will be done under the table. Qatargate is only a recent example, known because of its high profile, not because it being rare.
"Panzeri's group received payment in cash from Qatar, Morocco, Mauritania and possibly Saudi Arabia. The group are described as "shockingly amateurish", because they stored the money they received in bribes in their apartments, made hundreds of unencrypted telephone calls and held a "held a conspiratorial meeting in a hotel that was full of surveillance cameras". Nevertheless, they operated undetected for years. Green Party MEP Viola von Cramon-Taubadel said that Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Russia also "systematically purchased influence over an extended period"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...