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

DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

dronedj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 742 posts

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#301

Post by grumpyprole »

mrtksn wrote: post #208
lawlessone wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market... I can still buy a DJI drone here in Europe. What stifling are you referring to?

It's a meme on Twitter, essentially libertarians are pushing the idea that EU killed its tech industry through heavy reagulation and by tech they mean online advertisement. They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks. There's also the top-list theme, making list of top-10 companies by market cap, claiming that if your co…

I had always assumed that the UK killed it's tech industry by selling it all off for short term gain. That needs regulation to prevent.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#303

Post by Lisdexamfeta »

henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

All Xi has to do is stop barreling towards an invasion of Taiwan.

The U.S., Europe, and Japan need to create and enhance a drone industrial base before China invades Taiwan. By the time it has invaded, creating the industrial base will be too late.

Also, China has created DJI through government-sponsored industrial policy, not via open markets.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#304

Post by balls187 »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #79
henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

Okay, but what will happen if US goes to war with China? This can happen much quicker and easier than you think. Some Chinese delusional leader is going to attack Taiwan and voila, all the import from China will immediately stop at that exact moment.

> Okay, but what will happen if US goes to war with China?

Actual armed conflict? Total annihilation. Neither side wants this. Its why China will not invade Taiwan, and why the US won't put its boot on the neck of the China.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#305

Post by [deleted] »

glitchcrab wrote: post #106
arcanemachiner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head as a non-European: GDPR, 2-year warranties and other consumer protection laws

What an utterly ridiculous response. In your eyes, businesses should be able to run roughshod over the consumer? Yes, maybe the laws could have been more polished or have been implemented in a better way, but the underlying idea of protecting the consumer is the important takeaway from these laws.

[deleted]

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#307

Post by SSLy »

chme wrote: post #251
henvic wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about drone legislation here in Europe, but state overreach in tech in general + bad scene for startups compared to the US (for now...) due to politics.

Any concrete examples you are referring to?

The bi annual push for chat control (key „escrow”)

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#308

Post by chme »

henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

Most hardware has no reason to require direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work. If some device requires internet access, then it cannot be trusted to not transmit personal data, therefore it should be possible to replace the software on that device, so that something that is trusted by the consumer can be installed.

While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requirement makes it uncontrollable by the consumer, so I do understand that some consumers or, the possible more security aware US, will not trust it. But for the same reason China and other countries might not trust Apple or similar.

Trust is something that needs to be earned and which has to go both ways, if a company doesn't trust their users, and prevents people using their bought products however they like, then why should their users trust the company and let their uncontrollable software record their private lives and possible report back to them?

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#310

Post by kuschku »

nostrademons wrote: post #294
kuschku wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation isn't going to stop innovation that much, or the tech industry wouldn't be in california. The primary difference is that the US is one homogenous, huge market. If I build something in California, to California's laws, and it becomes a success, I can immediately sell it across the entire rest of the US, and I can expand across the US, using the same employment contracts as in california, same lawyers as in…

California's tech industry works because there is a long-established tradition of lawbreaking in California. We pass all these regulations, and then ignore them. Sometimes the more enlightened legislators put in explicit carve-outs for businesses of less than 50 employees or a $B in revenue, so that startups don't have to actually break the law, they can just ignore it. But they're going to ignore it anyway, so the c…

Sure, but that's not any different in EU. Lobbyism exists here, too.

But the social differences of the two markets remain.

Post reply on HN