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

It's not a crime if we do it with an app

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 640 posts

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#41

Post by memhole »

ryandrake wrote: post #17

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…

This has actually been partly why when people ask me about my business I tell them it sometimes feels more like a statement about incorporating yourself.

Minus the crime part to be clear. I actually try to hold myself to a high ethical standard.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#42

Post by maiar »

ryandrake wrote: post #17

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…

This. The entire point of corporations is to shield individuals from penalties, but they don’t work. Business failure in good faith, where the shielding makes sense, is not really protected because bank loans require personal liability and because it’s impossible these days to recover from a damaged reputation unless you come from a family rich enough to hire its own PR firm. On the other hand, when it comes to letting rich people get away with absolutely unambiguous criminality, corporations work very well.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#43

Post by cluckindan »

fny wrote: post #18

Don’t react to the Airbnb and Uber: read the article to the end. The core argument is tech empowers oligopolies which in turn drives inflation. There are other damning facts too: > private equity companies have rolled up all the fire truck companies, hiking the price of trucks, creating backlogs and bottlenecks for parts and service, and starving the nation's municipalities (including Los Angeles) Capitalism is dead.…

Crony capitalists are trying to see how far they can push before the people push back. So far people seem to be content to lie down and complain on forums managed by crony capitalists (for example the site you are on right now).

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#44

Post by marcosdumay »

Cheer2171 wrote: post #25
golemotron wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is not a great case for your argument. They made the world safer and enabled transportation for people who would otherwise not have it. No one, literally no one, who has spent any time in taxis wants to go back to them. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to call several companies to get a taxi to the airport have none arrive. Uber broke the ice and showed what was possible. There was literally no othe…

> Yes, they broke the law How about I go into your house and break the laws around theft? I promise to do good things for society with your property. The ends justify the means, according to your argument.

Some laws are just. Some aren't.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#46

Post by davidw »

fny wrote: post #18

Don’t react to the Airbnb and Uber: read the article to the end. The core argument is tech empowers oligopolies which in turn drives inflation. There are other damning facts too: > private equity companies have rolled up all the fire truck companies, hiking the price of trucks, creating backlogs and bottlenecks for parts and service, and starving the nation's municipalities (including Los Angeles) Capitalism is dead.…

For capitalism to work well, you need a strong state to create free and fair markets and punish bad actors.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#47

Post by Ekaros »

hermannj314 wrote: post #32

This is the way our world works. If you steal a potato, you will be arrested immediately and the case will be resolved in a few weeks or months. If you illegally fix the price of potatoes and steal billions from the market, you will be allowed to operate for years in the open while a lengthy civil procedure eventually may ask you to give 1 or 2% of what you stole back in fines. Don't blame the potato theives or potat…

Let's be honest hear. If you go to store and steal sack of potato. I doubt either the store or police will even attempt to track you anymore... Retail theft is just left to happen.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#49

Post by crawfordcomeaux »

cluckindan wrote: post #33

What proportion of the ultimate financial beneficiaries of these apps are old money white supremacists? Airbnb leaves more people homeless while enabling the rich more convenience. Uber (as in ”übermensch”) makes the most desperate people compete for pittances, use their income at the gas station and the auto parts store while enabling the rich more convenience. Doordash does the same. Robinhood et al take from the p…

Rioting has its place, but I think we're at a point where that's become somewhat performative & police are now militarized with Trump holding a good bit of the slack on their leash.

Find the underground railroads. Build communities of care. We need to get better at caring for each other & collaboration. The other side has apps for that. Where are the developers making apps for the revolution?

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#50

Post by miohtama »

method_capital wrote: post #36
Eextra953 wrote: post #23

Does anybody know whats stopping ethical and slightly less greedy companies from outcompeting these conglomerates? Its a question I keep coming back to because if the market were efficient then competitors should be able to use that same data to undercut big potato (or big whatever). This never seems to happen.

The answer is: nothing. The whole argument is predicated on a political conviction, not an economic reality.

Only argument I can think of is economics of scale. You need to have sufficient mass to enter the markets.

However even in this case customers, or Big Potato buyers, can simply ally and create a new supplier where they are shareholders.

Post reply on HN