Hacker News Reader

Comment by DevX101 | Hacker News Reader

What Aaron's trying to get accomplished here is precisely the type of work that lobbyists get paid for. And although he's right, the government can stonewall him indefinitely unless they have some kind of executive order to force a resolution. I'm sure that Paypal, VISA and friends have made campaign contributions or have had long conversations over games of golf to delay any competitive threat to their business model so he's got a steep hill to climb.

I'm assuming as a startup he can't afford to have a lobbying firm on retainer, so the best outcome would be that the Times or the Journal picks up this story and shames them into action.

But man, I admire the chutzpah and the brass balls it takes to pick this fight. Good luck!

View on HN

You are right, and it is unfortunate that a small business might need to consider lobbying as part of their funding/business plan. It's enough to steer many from even considering the financial industry, which is the outcome that the industry wants..

we need less lobbyists, not more. they are the problem, not the solution.

Relatively few people want to spend money on lobbyists, but when Washington or Sacramento changes the rules on you, what can you do? To remain silent might mean your business dies. To make your voice heard is to lobby. All right, then lobby it is, unfortunately.

I think we need more lobbyists, actually: the lobbyists should be the people.

http://www.plainsite.org

yes! listen to the public - the actual public. not special interest groups and corporations. our current lobbyists and these groups are the ones who put us here in the first place.

Or, he could just move on and do something that doesn't require fighting the government.

Sorry, but I can't read anything by Aaron without thinking how much of an unlikable character he is. Get the chip off your shoulder! Stop complaining. Stop boasting you "Invented" facebook. No one invents websites.

Reminds me of Mugatu "Do you not know who I am? I invented the piano key necktie!"

I find this to be somewhat of a depressing attitude. While it's not mandatory that everyone fight every fight worth fighting, I wouldn't actively discourage those willing to take a stand for the things they find worthwhile. Especially since this move is trying to resist corporate-backed bureaucracy that's arguably not helping anyone.

Depends if you want to "change the world", or just live a very happy active life doing things you love.

"finance" "gambling" "porn" - These will always be "high risk" sectors where government wants to do a lot of regulation and interfering.

Depends if you want to "change the world", or just live a very happy active life doing things you love.

How much of this decision should I put in your hands?

With all due respect, and as much as I am tired of complaining, your first point is kind of absurd.

As for your second point: what or who are you quoting? My bio doesn't say that. I take great care not to say that.

For better or worse, people care about this stuff. That's why they made a movie. That's why Mark is speaking at Startup School. It's the sad truth that a politician will pay more attention to someone who demonstrates that they were involved in the creation of a widely-known enterprise. If you look around, you'll see that it's just not the politicians, either.

My first point was: You chose a highly regulated industry sector which was never going to be easy. And now you're complaining it's highly regulated and not easy.

I was reading your "About" page. You seem to want to paint yourself as a martyr who has had to fight people every step of the way to get the success which you apparently deserve - That everyone else is wrong, and that you have succeeded despite all these people standing in your way. I don't think that's a likable picture.

Also from http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/index.html

"While at Harvard, he invented The Facebook." - I mean wtf that's cringeworthy surely.

Hope you take this critique in a good natured way... If I were you I'd remove every reference to facebook, startup something new in an UNREGULATED sector, (eg not finance), and prove people you can be successful.

No, I'm pretty sure your first point was not what I did do; it was what you think I (or presumably any entrepreneur?) should not do: complain about or enter any difficult sector. What a pathetic, un-American mentality. You can't be serious.

I don't know where you get the notion that one should only be successful in "an UNREGULATED sector," but if reading my critiques of a system that is so broken people are literally in the streets as I write this--it it's really that painful for you, you probably won't want to read Hacker News, or open a newspaper, for the next few months. Because as I said in the letter, I am not done, and I don't think Occupy Wall Street is, either.

Sheesh.

Occupy Wall Street will be forgotten about by Christmas.

If you want to spend your energy complaining how unfair life is, go ahead. I prefer to spend mine doing more useful things.

Actually, he's complaining that it's capriciously regulated and the state refuses to give straight answers.

Particularly in a highly-regulated industry, that is the state's responsibility.

He's not complaining that it's highly regulated. Actually, he almost seems to be glorying in the fact that it's highly regulated.

If it's so highly regulated, why is FaceCash's experience one of vagueness and ill-defined boundaries?

I don't know who Mr. Greenspan is (Aaron not Alan :) ), but this letter starts up being respectful, mostly factual, and well written (I say starts up because I haven't read the responses through, and it starts being less so midway).

I also understand his frustration with government regulation (my first attempt at a startup was stillborn due to regulation).

Some of his complaints aren't on the same level as his main points (complaining about having to make it to a meeting in person won't win any sympathy from me).

The way I read it, he was complaining about having to make it to a meeting in person only to be informed that the meeting was cancelled.

Yes, in that case it's understandable. It's still standard government procedure, sadly :( (happened to me more than once, but then again I live in a 3rd world country so I expect it).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com