Comment by shanusmagnus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shanusmagnus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I came back to make a comment just like this, but you already did it better than I would have.

The metaphor I had in mind was restaurants that make too much food, and (sometimes; some restaurants) they donate it to foodshelves (when appropriate) or sometimes just to some homeless guys who happen to be nearby. The extra food is an externality of their real purpose as a business, which is to take money in exchange for feeding people. They could throw the food away, but instead they're doing something nice with it. Almost nobody would say they should throw the food away because the homeless guys who happen to be the recipients of their largesse are benefiting, while other, further-away homeless guys are not. Such an argument would be idiotic.

In just this way these videos and course materials are an externality of the 'real' business of Berkeley, which is educating the people who are admitted to Berkeley and enrolled in the classes. Berkeley, and others like them, are going above and beyond to be nice to the rest of humanity, to our great collective benefit. This ADA thing is just a kick in the face, and it pisses me off.

No but people would say they food they give away should still comply with health regulations.

Just because you're making a gift doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you.

That's not a good comparison, not complying with health regulations substantially devalues the food given away, because of the significantly increased risk of illness resulting from consumption of said food.

Your second statement is irrelevant, we are not talking about what the law does, but what the law should do. And I absolutely think that gifts (and good samaritan acts in general) should be held to a much lower standard than commercial enterprises.

This is not at all unprecedented in US law (or in many places in the world), every state has some form of good samaritan law[1], which protects (to some extent) individuals who act in good faith to aid strangers in need of immediate medical assistance. There is also a federal law indemnifying donors of properly labeled foods, except in the case of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

These laws are important, because donations result in no benefit for the bearer, so making them cost money is a significant deterrence to charity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#United_Stat...

What does it matter in your scheme if the food being given away is substantially devalued? It's a gift, it should be held to a lower standard, right? Or are you saying that the gift must be of an equal value to that sold? Do they have to also serve it on fine china to the homeless? How low should the lowered standard be, then?

My second statement is disagreeing with yours. The law does and should absolutely hold organisational gifts to the same standard as commercial transactions. Not least because otherwise you create a massive loophole ripe for exploitation, at all levels.

"Hey, don't tax my import, it was a gift!".

"Hey, my formula milk shouldn't be subject to marketing laws, it's a gift to new [and ill-educated] mothers!"

"Hey, I shouldn't be subject to your weird license restrictions, my source code was a gift to the community!"

Now, sure, good samaritan laws are important things. But so is equality legislation, and disability rights legislation, and much of the other legislation that defines the standards society expects of its participants.

Should it, though?

I mean, if you want to impose costs (check carefully food, possibility of lawsuit) on a donation, what you get, predictably, is less donations.

It seems to be the case that you have an assymetrical view of harm: harm by not giving food is always acceptable, harm by giving food, usually unacceptable. Why would it be the case?

Yes, it should. What you get is arguably fewer donations, but the donations you get are better donations. You raise the standard. And others want to follow suit, so they up their game too.

This is already happening. UK supermarkets used to lock their bins to stop people stealing waste food because they were concerned they'd be liable for health violations. There were public protests, so they raised their games and began properly managed waste-food donation programmes.

It's asymmetrical because it's bigger than the one donation you have before you. When you look at the big picture, you have to say sometimes "this thing isn't good enough. Even though it might hurt society in the short term to refuse it, it will hurt it more in the long-term to accept it. So we refuse."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com