Hacker News Reader

Of course laws already exist and the laws give the government the power to remove servers and other things like that. This means the current laws prevent the web from being the wild west.

Just to be clear, I am against this law, but trying to say we should have the wild west seems like a bad idea.

View on HN

> This means the current laws prevent the web from being the wild west.

If you take 'wild west' to be pure anarchy free from any law, then sure. But I don't think that's what is actually meant, nor does it describe the real wild west, nor even the popular perception of the wild west. Pop-media depictions of the wild west are filled with sheriffs, bounty hunters, judges, etc. That wild west outlaws exist as a trope implies the existence of laws for these outlaws to violate. Utter absolute lawlessness is not the implication of 'wild west'.

If there were governments (or pseudo governments) then what does wild west mean in this case? The OP was saying the internet should be the wild west without government interference. My understanding was government free area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com