Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups.
P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other.
> P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
Why?
The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so.
> Why?
I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
Then GDPR does not forbid you to do so, Article 6.1 c)
> 1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
> [...]
> c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so.
> I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
This might be true, might be false. A good discussion should incorporate different views. And back to topic: I firmly believe this law to be dangerous by itself and not because there is a (more or less) applicable quote by a controversial writer.
True. Your quote from Ayn Rand was actually a reaction from 2 characters discussing how one law make it not possible to respect another. GDPR does make it more complex, and one can argue copyright is not a subject that should infringe privacy. It’s up to debate. Debate that US based startups won’t need to have if they don’t want to.
And it was more a Kudos to quoting Ayn Rand and an upvote!
it means about as much as "scripting language" or "strongly typed"
Also, now I want to write a framework called "libtarianism" that includes a pseudo rand generator.
There are certainly some ideas of merit but supporting politicians that push it seems to inevitably involve benefiting the right who is pushing for many agendas that will personally damage me and mine so I cannot in good conscience do so.
And you seem to be misunderstanding. Left-wing libertarians do not have the same set of ideas as the right-wing ones, you seem to think that there is "libertarianism" and that I am saying that some on the left also stand for those ideas that those on the right, (the only real area of agreement is an anti-war stance).
Left libertarianism is mostly about personal freedom, as opposed to authoritarianism, while still being in favor of social programs, oppose privatization of public services etc. You should read up on it.
See also [1].
"In the United States, the word "libertarian" has become associated with right-libertarianism after Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s.[7] However, until then political usage of the word was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism and in most parts of the world such an association still predominates."
I would've thought so too, until I looked at discussions about unions on here.
Look at all the mentions of "nazi", "fascist" and "hate-speech" in this thread. You can tell when a place leans left because this is a common left-wing conspiracy theory - that the world is full of fascists/nazis, but they're all trying to hide it. They call it 'cryptofascism'.