Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

The most hilarious part of this law is that there is a specific exception carved out for any company that "owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex". You would think oh, maybe there's some hidden complicated reasoning for this? Nope. The sponsor of the bill literally said he wants to make sure Disney+ "isn't caught up in this".

It's crazy to see such blatant, open corruption in American politics.

View on HN

A commoner caught stealing money is subject to prison, but a politician blatantly wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer resources on frivolous laws and ensuing lawsuits is hailed by nearly half the population.

Not even politician. Compare the penalties of stealing $100 from the till vs payroll theft.

In California, stealing something worth $950 and under is a misdemeanor. Theft is skyrocketing and businesses are leaving. Walgreens has closed 17 stores in San Francisco alone in the last 5 years. They recently uncovered a theft ring that had over $8 million in stolen products. Apparently, some people, enough people, take advantage of compassionate laws to the detriment of everyone else. So, I guess it depends on where you compare that $100 theft.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-co...

Something tells me that a theft ring doesn't get to $8 million without anyone taking more than $1K. And even if they did, I personally don't see why society should foot the bill for prosecuting and incarcerating someone over a stolen $100 from a private corporation that's probably insured anyway.

What they do is have many people steal stuff under $950, every day. It adds up over time. They usually steal things with a long shelf life and then resell it on ebay, amazon and other places. It's an organized theft ring.

> that's probably insured anyway

That's a pretty poor attitude, imho. You're ok with stealing things as long as they're "insured?" Who pays the insurance, and what are insurance rates based on? Insurance companies are looking at these multi-million dollar losses and jacking up the rates in these areas, or not covering certain areas at all. The end result is businesses are closing, and the community is losing access to various stores because of it. So, who's really benefiting from this?

The under $950 thing is very spurious. It really should be “we won’t go after anything under 100k” because that’s essentially what it is. Things at the 10k market are routinely stolen and not reported because cops won’t do anything. “Fill out a form. Thanks. You have video of the perp doing it and their name, address, social security number, and the last four digits of their credit card? Sorry, we can’t do anything.”

If you have anything of value just insure it and put a low deductible on it. Cost of doing business in these times.

Things are so much worse...

A friend of mine runs a Equestrian Academy. A couple of weeks ago-- this person who rents a place on the premises invited her "son" to squat on the property.

The thing about horses is this-- they're pack animals. You have to be calm around them because, if you excite one horse. all the horses will see that excited guy, assume there's danger, and start running. This is a life or death thing. A spooked horse will trample people, buck, etc.

Every "horse person" knows this. It's the first thing you learn about horses.

So this individual-- makes a habit of driving his car fast up and down the entrance of the ranch. This spooked a horse and nearly got a little girl killed (who was riding it).

The second time this happened-- someone happened to be driving down that entrance and was doing the right thing-- going under 10mph. This person parks his car and then assaults the driver and another person who tried to break up the fight.

Police were called, and, "Nothing can be done." Despite 4 witnesses. The dude is back squatting on the property after a couple of days.

In my county-- A guy drove a stolen car into a Porsche-- stole the keys for the cars-- stole a Porsche-- and was released on 10k bail. Literally, a DUI is 50k bail.

Societal order itself is at issue.

Theft and property loss isn’t a loss of life (usually). Also, eyewitness testimony is very bs. I was run into by a car and people on the street started saying it was my fault when the police showed up. I wasn’t the same race as the driver and the folks on the street. (I was blown away how blatant that was) Thankfully, the police looked at the crash and it was super obvious I wasn’t at fault. Imagine if cops listened to the “eyewitnesses” in that case even though it was blatantly obvious? I could’ve been held liable to pay for the other driver’s car and any spurious medical claims they’d start making.

Blame your mayor, sheriff, and state government (who are all - unsurprisingly - voted in by locals). They’re the ones setting the agenda.

Crimes of financial impact are generally seen as “should’ve bought insurance” type of situations. The agenda is set by those with money and those with money have insurance - so these things don’t bother them unless it’s egregiously expensive.

Seems like a cheap alternative would be for a group of companies to co-own a "theme park". Fight stupid with stupid

Facebook doesn't want to be in the theme park ownership game, but it would be kind of hilarious if they either bought NBCUniversal or just bought Universal Studios theme park out of NBCUniversal.

Or, hell, I bet Merlin Entertainment might be receptive to an offer for Legoland.

Here is what they would have to accomplish:

From the new law:

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.as...

  > The term does not include any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex as defined in s. 509.013.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/509.013

  > “Theme park or entertainment complex” means a complex comprised of at least 25 contiguous acres owned and controlled by the same business entity and which contains permanent exhibitions and a variety of recreational activities and has a minimum of 1 million visitors annually.

Hilarious

Twitter could kill two birds with one stone and establish a 25 contiguous acre zone filled with recreational activities where visitors rate tweets on whether or not they think it violates the Terms of Service.

I’m imagining each company starting a theme park to get around the law. Microsoft’s would have scary rides like Blue Screen of Death and DLL Hell. Facebook’s rides have people you never want to talk to again trying to start conversations with you, and you have to deflect 10 in a row to win a stuffed animal. Google’s park will shut down their best rides just when people were starting to like them. Apple’s will be sleek and glassy and completely silent — you’ll only be able to hear what’s going on when you put on your AirPods Pro Max 3S.

That last one doesn’t sound like a bad idea at all.

The cheaper alternative is to sue and have the clearly unconstitutional theater piece thrown out.

Is this any different than, say, California's AB5 though? AB5 is riddled with carve outs but many here call it a fair bill (and I recognize that many, maybe even most here, also call it out for having so many carve outs). Exempting particular segments from regulations seems to be the norm when you're trying to narrowly target a certain industry.

It's obvious graft because DisneyWorld is in Florida.

I genuinely don't know a single person who considered AB5 "fair". In fact, the entire reason prop 22 passed was because AB5 is such a disaster.

7 million people with 41 percent of the vote voted against prop 22. Clearly many many people considered it fair.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

Over $200 million was spent on Prop 22, making it the most expensive measure in CA history. The idea that the results were based on each voter's personal assessment of the fairness of AB5 sounds pretty generous (or naive) when faced with lobbying like this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-uber-and-doordashs-push-....

So Florida lawmakers implemented a rule that allows someone to sue if they think a social media platform is inconsistently applying their content rules and, without even the slightest hint of irony, have implemented this new rule... inconsistently?

Do as I say, not as I do, I suppose.

Amazon just bought MGM, who owns Universal, so they're safe.

I imagine Amazon was already safe since they don't have a major social media platform do they?

Oh wait, they do have twitch, which probably hits these issues. Huh.

Universal Studios is owned by Comcast, not MGM/Amazon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com