Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> the burden should be on companies to ensure their products are safe prior to releasing them to the public

I suspect big companies would love to stifle the competition from small competitors who can’t afford to sink money into this type of analysis



Sounds good to me, stifle away. Move fast and break things doesn't fit in with consumer safety.


Really, is this the argument you want to actually make? That we shouldn't regulate things that people put on/into their body because we might hurt the "little guy?"

Mind you I've been hearing about this mythical "little guy" that massive multinational corporations love to trot out when it comes to increasing regulations or taxes against them but over the course of my lifetime all I've seen is a massive increase in power and consolidation from these companies.

It's so odd realizing you live in a dystopian cyberpunk future without the pretty trinkets to go along with it.


>>"dystopian cyberpunk future"

This is the future all of us kids from the 1970s and 1980s BUILT on the premise of "wouldnt it be cool if...." -- We (and I am personally guilty, as are many HNers, of facilitating the "wouldnt it be cool if Cyberpunk tropes were reality?"

I helped build spying (marketing) infra, sentiment measures etc...

But the "little guy" that bigPharma preys upon is the 'patient' J&J needs corporate capital punishment, because this isnt the first time or only incident of them causing negative outcomes for profit (recall their tainted vaccines?)




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

Search: