Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

blog.ycombinator.com

121–125 of 125 posts

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#121
The same way capitalist concentration made building a small business very hard by the start of the 20th Century, the same process is taking place right now with the Internet. We usually don't notice or even like it (why, isn't it great to have every service in the same place?), but it is a tendency. Many arguments in favor of the small business and the virtues of free competition that were used back then are being used now by this post. The post even acknowledges that "the world isn't flat", but presumes the Internet needs to be, as if it was isolated from the rest of the system.

Even if net neutrality were approved, I don't think that unless there are other technological revolutions that open new sectors up like the PC or the Internet were, that subdivisions of large companies will be responsible for most new stuff, taking the most of the market for itself anyway and making competition harder, as we can see today in many ways. It'd just be a (very positive) way to preserve the current state of things a while longer, but not something capable of keeping the Internet "flat" in the long term.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who recognizes the utter irony of his approach.

The campaign itself explicitly recognizes the irony. You aren't being that observant if you fail to recognize that.

I recognize the irony. The reason it's ironic is because it's doomed to fail. You cannot raise money in order to lessen the influence of money. If this campaign does anything, it will simply invite opposing groups to raise more money in order to elect anti-campaign finance reform candidates.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#123
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way: Suppose there exists a politician that cares deeply about N issues. She knows she can only do what's right on M out of those N due to various constraints. She is going to pick those M issues that are most important to her. She will fight tooth and nail to get reelected so that she can complete her work on those M issues. This is exactly what politicians should be doing, no?

Interesting point. I haven't thought about it that way. But do you think that's the explanation for all the activities where they flipflop on the other N-M issues?

Yes, partially, it is. If, as a politician, you deeply care about a specific issue that you think is most important, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes on all the other ones to get it done.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#124
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. I haven't thought about it that way. But do you think that's the explanation for all the activities where they flipflop on the other N-M issues?

Yes, partially, it is. If, as a politician, you deeply care about a specific issue that you think is most important, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes on all the other ones to get it done.

In that case, wouldn't it be nice to have a website that identifies every politician's main focus? Based on their votes and maybe with interviews on that page supporting it?

Such a website would be very useful to society, and can be done on city and state levels all around the world.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The campaign itself explicitly recognizes the irony. You aren't being that observant if you fail to recognize that.

I recognize the irony. The reason it's ironic is because it's doomed to fail. You cannot raise money in order to lessen the influence of money. If this campaign does anything, it will simply invite opposing groups to raise more money in order to elect anti-campaign finance reform candidates.

What's important isn't a success or failure (in Lessig's "trial" election cycle or in 2016). I think his point is: people care enough about campaign finance reform to help raise $5m in a month.

If candidates knew this was something their constituents cared about, they might actually run on it.

Who cares if Lessig fails. We're finally talking about campaign finance.

Post reply on HN