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

I did read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34363208

I felt you misrepresented it, and that you have done again here. It makes a simple policy argument that there should be sterner consequences for lying to the public, contrasting the US with some other countries. You have rewritten it to say something quite different.




What do you think 'No law was broken, you would say. Still. There should be consequences.' means?

What do you think 'In China, prosecutors would chalk it up to general charges of "corruption" or "public dishonesty" or whatever.' means?


It's simple; China has strong laws against self-dealing, and (in the poster's view) their legal code is not riddled with loopholes and getout clauses. We have the same concept in the USA, but it is rarely applies to financial crimes. It's called 'strict liability.'

And have you not noticed how people sometimes get longer prison terms for small crimes than large ones? As of 2021, the US incarcerates ~5x more people than China (per capita), but penalties for untoward business activity are generally light.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...


GP did not misrepresent the comment. It’s clear as day. “We should look to China, where they executed a corrupt CEO.”

I can glean no other message from the comment. What you’re describing would require quite a bit of mental gymnastics on my part.

I think you’re ignoring what the comment says in clear plain English and interpreting it in a way you think is less controversial.


The point is that that country has strong general laws against corruption. The US does not; deceiving consumers is largely excused here, and stiff punishments are reserved for deceiving investors.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: