←back to thread

278 points miles | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
rootlocus ◴[] No.44364162[source]
> The new version of NO FAKES requires almost every internet gatekeeper to create a system that will a) take down speech upon receipt of a notice; b) keep down any recurring instance—meaning, adopt inevitably overbroad replica filters on top of the already deeply flawed copyright filters; c) take down and filter tools that might have been used to make the image; and d) unmask the user who uploaded the material based on nothing more than the say so of person who was allegedly “replicated.”

Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement.

replies(5): >>44364273 #>>44364780 #>>44365131 #>>44365529 #>>44366542 #
dspillett ◴[] No.44364273[source]
> Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement.

Or the sort of thing bigger companies lobby for to make the entry barriers higher for small competition. Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”.

replies(2): >>44366318 #>>44366863 #
a4isms ◴[] No.44366863[source]
To adapt the words of composer Frank Wilhoit:

"Crony capitalism consists of but one principle: In-corporations who are protected by regulation, but not bound by it, alongside out-corporations who are bound by regulation, but not protected by it."

replies(2): >>44367159 #>>44367624 #
dredmorbius ◴[] No.44367624[source]
I love Wilhoit's original, and want to note that he's been active lately on HN as well (<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit>).

His sentiments are pressaged by others, including Adam Smith (1776):

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/>

Or some guy named Matthew, somewhat earlier:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

<https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm>

replies(2): >>44370435 #>>44393164 #
emh68 ◴[] No.44393164[source]
> defense of the rich against the poor

Taking this a step further, it's logical to conclude that society itself is a constant war between rich people, who use their wealth (influence/power) to enlist the poor in their attacks on one another. Taking it another level, we could say that "society" itself is merely a side-effect of this war, in fact it is the current state-of-the-art weapon in this struggle. If something better than capitalistic society comes about (such as, most obviously, human-level AIs and robotics), the rich will not hesitate to abandon the society strategy.

replies(1): >>44399324 #
1. dredmorbius ◴[] No.44399324[source]
That's pretty close to the insight I had about a decade ago reading the opening paragraphs of A.H.M. Jones's biography of Augustus.

I've quoted the passage, which describes the political balance and division between the optimates, populares, and equites, roughly the oligarchs, labour, and petit bourgousie, in this (now archived) Reddit post:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20230607042525/https://old.reddi...>

The durability of such conflict makes me strongly suspect that this is innate to human polity, and Jones's description of the respective groups' political platforms, concerns, and ideologies strike me as both insightful and possibly innate.

I've mentioned this several times previously on HN:

<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>