Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why even bother to shut down? Google could probably just go "Haha! Fuck you. Who's your closest supervisor in an elected office?" Next day, "<Official> wants Google to share your personal information with the Federal Government" magically becomes the top hit for that name.

Bureaucrats and spooks are happy to play this game because they know it never comes back to them. Nobody who has to answer to voters would dare put their name on it-- we're looking for any damn excuse to not vote for the incumbent this cycle.

But I guess standing up for us could mean a hit to shareholder value, and some things just aren't worth sacrificing.




Nobody who has to answer to voters would dare put their name on it?

Remember that 99-1 vote for the Patriot Act? The one senator who voted against, Russ Feingold, lost in 2010 to a guy who's campaign slogan revolved heavily around "freedom".


There are many dimensions of freedom. I'll note that Sen. Feingold's name shares a place in "McCain-Feingold", which is a limitation on free speech (some may argue that it's a warranted limitation, but the fact that it is a limitation on freedom is objectively true)


Yeah, I know that some people consider limiting campaign contributions to be more damaging to freedom than creating the legal framework for a modern day KGB. I think those people are ignorant.

Fascism and communism didn't kill 100 million people because of a 2300 dollar limit on campaign contributions.


Perhaps they did so because of a total ban on advocacy ads within X days of the election? We wouldn't want people to hear about what a snake their Congressman is, when the election is close enough they might remember.

There's a heck of a lot more to McCain-Feingold than just a $2300 limit.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: