Hacker News Reader

Comment by travmatt | Hacker News Reader

Democrats haven’t been raising 230 regulation though, that’s been republicans disgruntled that their ads had been fact-checked (by partisan conservatives, it turns out). The proposed regulations coming out of the house have been more about competition and anti-monopoly.

It’s hard to see this as anything more than an attempt to change their bet on a losing horse in this race, as the commenter you replied to pointed out.

And I’m not sure if we’re remembering the same 2016 election. We’re both talking about the same election, that resulted in the largest win for an American political party in history, right? 2016 was absolutely horrendous for conservatives and their saving grace was the senate cycle was particularly bad for democrats. If there’s a similar performance this election there’s a good chance that they take both branches.

View on HN

>Democrats haven’t been raising 230 regulation though, that’s been republicans disgruntled that their ads had been fact-checked

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/21274812/joe-biden-donald... : "Joe Biden doesn’t like Trump’s Twitter order, but still wants to revoke Section 230"

> Democrats haven’t been raising 230 regulation though

They may not be raising specifically 230 concerns. But democrats are absolutely bringing up anti-trust concerns regarding major tech company.

Arguably, anti-trust breakup of major tech companies would be much more destructive to those tech companies, than merely removing some tech companies ability to moderate content.

> They may not be raising specifically 230 concerns. But democrats are absolutely bringing up anti-trust concerns regarding major tech company.

My comment that you replied to says that democrats in the house have been bringing up anti-trust concerns. Anti-trust and 230 regulation are two separate things done for different reasons. They are not equivalent actions nor do are they being pursued out of the same concerns. Trying to conflate them is wrong.

> Trying to conflate

I think that from a higher level principle, they can be conflated.

The way that they can be conflated is that many of these tech companies, just don't have many friends left.

Even if the exact reason as for why they don't have many friends left may be different, the end result is still the same.

The left and the right may be going after them from different angles, but that is still pretty bad, because nobody is there to defend them.

People who may have stuck their neck out to defend them in the past, just aren't going to do so anymore.

Is it really your opinion that the richest and most powerful industry in the world has no ability to defend itself? And that we need to fight back and encourage monopoly and stifle competition?

And sorry, they are still not conflatable - you’re still trying to create a false equivalence. They are not the same thing, the desire here to misrepresent facts to fit into a narrative is intellectually dishonest.

> has no ability to defend itself?

Well, in the legislative bodies, they have much less ability to defend itself, than in the past, due to both parties having significant, albeit different, problems with these companies.

> trying to create a false equivalence.

They are equivalent in the specific aspect of them having less allies in congress, and that this makes them more vulnerable than in the past.

IE, less people in our legislative bodies will be willing to stick their neck out to defend them.

> to fit into a narrative

It is absolutely accurate to say that these companies have less allies in congress, than in the past, and that being hit, from both sides, on these 2 issues, hurts these companies.

I can promise you that the major tech companies have no shortage of people in Washington preaching the benefits their companies provide. I wouldn’t say they have less allies than I would say that people don’t use the same rose-tinted glasses when it comes to these companies and their effects on the markets they participate in. It’d be perverse to have a congress that allows what it sees as monopolistic behavior just because their friends are the ones profiting from it.

> I would say that people don’t use the same rose-tinted glasses

You can use different words to describe having less allies, or allies that are less likely to support them, if you want.

But my point still stands. They either have less allies, or those allies are less likely to look at these tech companies through "rose-tinted glasses"

Glad you agree that their former "allies" are no longer looking at these companies so favorable, using " rose-tinted glasses".

The only people who expected democrats to defend monopolies because they were ‘friends’ has either a very cynical or naive view of the influence of business on the Democratic Party, and very little historical perspective.

Arguments that would essentially allow monopolistic behavior has pretty much always been firmly inside republican laissez-faire circles, and those allies are still very much there. Railing against tech elites may play great for tv, but let’s be honest - Peter Thiel, strong advocate of monopoly, still spoke at the Republican national convention. There’s a good reason they overruled fact-checkers when conservatives violated their prescribed rules, they know where their bread is buttered.

https://www.engadget.com/facebook-overruled-fact-checkers-to...

I think you are referring to the 2018 election, when the Democratic Party regained majority in the House and there were not many Republican held Senate seats being elected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com