HN has a well known hatred for anything crypto. I’m not really sure why, to be honest. Very odd that an authoritarian action by an extremely centralized government is being applauded on here.
But this is the authoritarian regime being authoritarian. HN isn't praising them doing something unusual, this is authoritarian China acting in its most normal manner. It wouldn't be surprising if Xi dictated this course of action either, although if he did I'm sure it was with support of China's wealthy elites.
We are in for a scary future, enabled by the attitudes in this thread.
You're adding context that isn't really being discussed. If the discussion is 'Should we support actions by Xi, as an authoritarian, even if we agree with them?', then I'd say no. We shouldn't support actions by Authoritarian regimes.
That's not what discussed here. The discussion here is 'Is this action net positive or net negative?'. I believe it is net positive.
I can acknowledge the beneficial aspects of an action independent of it's executor. Bringing the executor into the conversation changes the topic. Think of it like discussing rocketry advancements in the 20th century. Nazis played a big role, but you can talk about how awesome rockets are without invoking them.
Stop it! Break the cycle! Changing your mind says nothing bad about you. Let the past go, and think it through today, as if you saw it for the first time.
I own some Bitcoin I mined myself in the early days. By luck or stupidity, I lost it for years and then found it in an old backup and now it is worth a number that would afford me a healthy retirement if I could get over my analysis paralysis. But I still think Bitcoin, as it embodies the idea of "crypto currency," is a terrible idea as a store of value, as an impact on our planet's environment, and as financial policy.
I feel the same way about housing policy (I own a house in Seattle), about transportation (I used to own two cars, but now none), about tax policy (I benefit greatly from Washington State having no income tax and relying mostly on flat-rate taxes that don't take up much of my income), and several more. Even though they're personally good for my family and me, they're terrible for the society at large and we have to live in a society so I'd like something better.
So, yeah, I think it's a bit reductive to distill the dissenting voices on HN down to "well, they didn't buy and hodl so they're just grouchy."
Maybe these people feel this way because they feel the government needs to protect people against themselves. Or maybe because they somehow fear central banks losing power and they feel central banks are needed in a monetary system. Or maybe they are concerned with the energy use for mining some crypto currencies (mainly Bitcoin).
On the other hand there's the libertarians that want as little government as possible. Libertarians tend to feel that people should be free to make their own choices as long as it doesn't harm other people. And that it's ok to make mistakes and learn from them and government doesn't need to protect people from mistakes.
I believe the tech sector has plenty of people on either side.
I myself am on the libertarian side and think crypto is a force of good. I do wonder if this crypto crackdown in China could somehow be related to the situation with Evergrande.
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-road-from-liber...
With China turning against bitcoin (regardless of their motivation), the latter category has even more reason to think cryptocurrency is a lousy way to fleece people for your personal gain. You don't have to be ethical to be against crypto, you can be a scammer yourself and simply be unsatisfied with the quality of the exploit being proposed.
"There is no future in this" is a fine reason to be against a thing even if you have no ethical qualms about exploiting people's foolishness. You have to be able to build a plausible case for why somebody ought to buy into it, and that just got observably harder.