You've chosen a poor example to illustrate your case.
The Dutch East India Company was a state granted monopoly. Obviously in this case, the regulations (state charter) empowered the abuses you feel so strongly about.
More generally, I'd caution against applying the present day norms around human rights to a distant historical case.
...All to create an account for this "private" messaging service. After which I needed to disable location sharing and public display of a phone number I used. A recent change now gives the country of the sim I used when registering if I DM someone new.
Other than that, his message does speak to valid concerns. However, I'm not sure why Telegram needed so much personal data for sending private messages.
I don't think it is that extreme. The problem with the poster's assertion is that one individual's "free-market" as the poster defines it, is another's state capitalism.
If the above poster feels that there is a pragmatic need for regulation, fine. However the underlying principles of laissez-faire remain clearly defined. By appealing to a pragmatic need for regulation, the poster opens the door for centralized capture of the market. Long term this trend creates malign incentives.
Historically those who couldn't achieve monopoly conditions by appealing to consumers on the market, used the power of the state instead. So there's a mixed bag at best here. Others contend that the truly toxic monopolies are created exclusively by this process. You can take you pick, we're free to disagree here, but denying the hazards of the regulatory state would be unreasonable. Maybe that's an acceptable trade off and I think that's a fair discussion.
However, all of that is a far way off from an appeal to special circumstances, "because AI", "markets bad" and therefore neo-luddite doom. It isn't something we have observed with other tech innovations, nor is it grounded in axiomatic reasoning.
It isn't enough to observe empirically how laissez-faire has increased living standards to the extent that it is permitted. It is also necessary to describe the impossibility of central planning due to the Economic Calculation Problem.
We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning.
Yes, vaguely liberalized economies have had problems. It doesn't follow that the problems of these vaguely liberalized economies are exclusively the result of liberalization. HN will harp on cherry picked citations. A common theme will be judging events in the distant past by the standards of the present.
The alternative is not a utopia, it is a relatively less free and more centrally planned economy. The failure mode of these centralized systems is more catastrophic, results in less opportunity and less productivity.
AI is a technology to be used to improve the human condition. The laissez-faire system, to the extent that we allow it, is the decentralized way to allocate resources to serve humanity.
The poster provided an example of poor abstraction. HTML for display, JS for client side logic. Combining them is part of the problem with other popular frameworks.
Yes, many partisans are asserting that it is unprecedented. The selective omissions advance their narrative. They are acting in self-interest. The out-party hate is downstream and symptomatic.
A less partisan view might find that it the actions of the political classes are not unprecedented. It is a progression of the form. Both poles represent false alternatives in this regard. The malign incentives are systemic.
You're stepping into a distinct issue where you specify politicians or the political classes. Thus far I took the discussion to be about individuals engaging in informal political discussions. The poll itself wasn't limited to politicians.
There are well known malign incentives for politicians and the political classes. Generally speaking these involve the expansion of the purview of the state and the time preferences dictated by electoral cycles. These are realist views around the incentives political actors find themselves subjected to. The extent of how much these incentives are perceived to dictate outcomes might correlate with the observer's cynicism. However, presuming that these incentives would only apply to one political party would be naive at best. At worst it would be divisive partisan tilting. The suggestion that it is specific to Republicans and the devolution of this thread is illustrative of the polling data.
That is a good example of a bad faith presupposition. It assumes intent. You may passionately believe this and it may even be a popular view here at HN. However, it isn't a starting point for a dialogue.
Specifically, it feels like the lack of discernment goes off the rails and falls into the chasm of derangement where people assume that their opponents do not have that common goal. Anti-natalists and population control advocates excluded, most of us do share that goal. The differences are in the proposed approaches.
There are legitimate discussions which can be had about those approaches to achieving that common goal. The discussion is no longer in good faith where partisans deny that common goal or assume evil intent.
The privacy implications are only one of the off-putting elements of the new norm of constant filming. There's something vapid and self-absorbed about everything being filmed and shared. Existing in the moment isn't enough anymore. For many, each moment needs to be preempted for a contrived video or pic.
I can appreciate the potential utility of a HUD in daily scenarios. For myself, I'm content to go sans device when I'm out of the house. Don't I get enough here at my desk? Not everything needs to be computed, optimized or shared.