←back to thread

160 points cruzcampo | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.413s | source
Show context
palata ◴[] No.43651526[source]
> There are few unicorns in Europe, alas, and too little innovation.

There is most definitely innovation in Europe. It just gets bought by the US, who is quick to forget where the technology came from.

As for unicorns and trillion dollars companies... some may say it's a feature, not a bug. It's great to claim to have free speech and competition, but when a few people own a few big monopolies and control the media, is it real? Regulations are not bad.

replies(6): >>43651631 #>>43651695 #>>43651698 #>>43651715 #>>43651764 #>>43653696 #
qsort ◴[] No.43651715[source]
> As for unicorns and trillion dollars companies... some may say it's a feature, not a bug

Cope much?

As a European I'd rather not have half of our industries critically depend on AWS and Microsoft, especially now that the US has fully embraced governance by RNG. The choice isn't having or not having your own digital infrastructure, it's either having your own or having to depend on someone else.

replies(5): >>43651741 #>>43651758 #>>43651843 #>>43651893 #>>43651973 #
InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.43651893[source]
>As a European I'd rather not have half of our industries critically depend on AWS and Microsoft

It seems to me that's a point in support of the idea that Unicorns are a problem and should not exist.

replies(1): >>43651915 #
huntertwo ◴[] No.43651915[source]
What a free society that would be!
replies(3): >>43651971 #>>43651994 #>>43652134 #
palata ◴[] No.43651971[source]
I don't get this interpretation of "free". Would you say that one should be "free" to kill someone else?

Nobody wants absolute freedom. We all want some set of rules (e.g. "You should not be allowed to burn my house for fun"). Of course, we may want rules that benefit us personally ("Taxes should be paid to me personally, not to the country"), but that obviously doesn't work (if taxes are paid exclusively to me, they can't be paid exclusively to you).

So as a group, we agree on a set of rules that benefits society the most. We want to "maximize the global utility", if I can say it like this.

If "not having unicorns" is better for the society at large than "having unicorns", then it works. And your short-sighted, convenient understanding of "freedom" doesn't change that.

replies(1): >>43652076 #
1. huntertwo ◴[] No.43652076[source]
How would you restrict the existence of unicorns?

Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument.

Edit: my implicit argument is that restricting unicorns while sounds nice on paper is that the net benefit of an implementation of that is net negative - not that absolute anarchy is the solution.

replies(2): >>43652230 #>>43653072 #
2. palata ◴[] No.43652230[source]
> Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument.

Because your sarcasm was constructive, maybe?

> my implicit argument is that

Next time, maybe consider making it explicit and without using sarcasm.

My explicit answer was that if you consider that regulations are fundamentally against freedom, then I disagree. To me, it's perfectly fine to regulate unicorns if we believe it is better for the society. You can disagree with the fact that it would be better for society, but that's not what you said. What you said is that regulating against unicorns would be against freedom.

3. abenga ◴[] No.43653072[source]
> How would you restrict the existence of unicorns?

Enact and enforce anti trust laws.