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

Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

endpts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–222 of 222 posts

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#221

Post by kerkeslager »

tablespoon wrote: post #36
kerkeslager wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are freee to keep your money and die if you prefer. Just to be clear, you're proposing that "freedom" means "do what this corporations wants you to do or die". If this were anywhere but Hacker News, I'd think you were joking, but... you're being serious, aren't you? And let me guess: if a government says, "do what we want you to do, or die", that's regulation and therefore bad, because it's a government doing i…

> If this were anywhere but Hacker News, I'd think you were joking, but... you're being serious, aren't you? How did you come to that conclusion? I mean, there is a lot of earnest extreme libertarianism on HN, but not nearly so much that you can assume a comment like the GP isn't sarcastic. The correct interpretation is somewhere between "sarcastic" and "too ambiguous to tell" without digging into comment history.

Well, admittedly it was a guess, but it was an educated guess based on past experience with HN, and as you can see from blitzar's followup post, I guessed correctly.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#222

Post by kerkeslager »

blitzar wrote: post #127
tablespoon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this were anywhere but Hacker News, I'd think you were joking, but... you're being serious, aren't you? How did you come to that conclusion? I mean, there is a lot of earnest extreme libertarianism on HN, but not nearly so much that you can assume a comment like the GP isn't sarcastic. The correct interpretation is somewhere between "sarcastic" and "too ambiguous to tell" without digging into comment history.

Hell I can clear it up. > the patient's trust in the company to rip them off on lifesaving drugs So is it dont trust the company to a) have drugs that will save your life (i.e. rip you off by giving you sugar pills) b) make you pay a price that is "not worth it" (i.e. a higher price than your life is worth). My reference to freedom is literal, nothing to do with government or any other agenda - perhaps other interpre…

> My reference to freedom is literal

Yes, and that's the problem.

If your options are "do what someone else wants you to do" or "die", that's not freedom. Literally not freedom. Whether you trust or don't trust the person, is completely irrelevant to the fact that your very survival is conditioned on obedience.

And sure, it does seem like somehow you arrive at the conclusion that people who can't pay for life-saving healthcare should have collective help.

But, in a way, not understanding what freedom is, is actually more fundamental than that. Even if people can pay for life-saving treatments, why is it acceptable that they would have to? In what context would it be acceptable to threaten to kill someone if they don't pay you a ransom?

Freedom does not exist if all the options are obviously terrible.

Post reply on HN