Yeah, not your strongest argument ever. Aaron Swartz and Google AdSense have absolutely nothing to do with money transmission. Nice try though.
The general sentiment I get from the community is that if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't participate. The community is entitled to that sentiment, and I am entitled to strongly disagree with it, which I will continue to do so long as it persists.
> The general sentiment I get from the community is that
> if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you
> happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't
> participate.
For all the talk of deference to logic, facts and expertise here, the reality is that this community is just as emotional, superstitious and irrational as any other group of humans you'll find.
Forget about "facts" and "evidence": If you want to win people's support you'll have to court them like a politician courts voters. Study the techniques of some politicians who had to gain support for unpopular or controversial legislation.
Not only are people sick and tired of your dead horse, some of the folks here are on the other side of your lawsuit (or close). So don't be surprised when you don't get the red carpet.
Word to the wise: don't pollute HN like this or you risk alienating those that were seeing things your way (or at least, had a bit more balance than just black/white).
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. I'm trying to make a point about ethics that no one wants to hear. Still not one person has addressed any of my initial concerns.
No, that much is clear. What is clear is that you have an axe to grind and have lost perspective as to what is and is not a proper venue for making your point (you're suing, what else do you want to do?), and that your concerns are now a matter of court review so whatever someone here has to say about it (including Sam Altman) has no importance at all.
Ethics have relatively little to do with your complaint, you contend that it should be illegal, that does not mean that it is ethical or not to engage in said practice.
Lots of things that are legal are not ethical and vice versa, but by involving the courts you have made your battleground the legal aspect, not the ethical one.
The one that does not want to hear it seems in this case is you.
So you're saying that because I filed a lawsuit, which for the time being is no longer pending, I should relinquish the right to speak in public about the ethical implications raised by that lawsuit, and that any such speech is "pollution."
All I can say is that I disagree wholeheartedly.
Also, ethics have everything to do with my complaint.
If you're trying to argue that all payments startups, AirBnB and Uber are unethical because they are operating in reasonable but gray legal areas, then you're wrong.
ps you might have more luck pretending that you're trying to win a popularity contest. No one likes lamers.
The general sentiment I get from the community is that if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't participate. The community is entitled to that sentiment, and I am entitled to strongly disagree with it, which I will continue to do so long as it persists.