4 ms·
It's just normal now for huge companies to meet with government "regulators" who have the power to empower or disable their business model and that of their com
by jMyles 11y ago
It's just normal now for huge companies to meet with government "regulators" who have the power to empower or disable their business model and that of their competition.
- qmalxp 11y agoWas it ever not normal?
- jMyles 11y agoI really don't know. I assume that you are correct that it has been normal at various times throughout history - the railroads come to mind for sure. But it seems to me - and I have no special insight on this per se - that technology companies have dramatically increased their reliance on insider contacts in government in the past... I dunno, 5 years? Something like that? Maybe 10? I sat through pitch week at BluePrint in NYC and I was absolutely floored at how many companies (seriously almost every single one) openly described the advantages they thought they had as a result of odd or even outright unethical health-care 'regulations.'
- gnaritas 11y agoHow else do you propose new technology become legal if not by meeting with government regulators to promote change? You can't just sell self driving cars because you want to, the law must first be addressed.
- jMyles 11y agoI propose that "legal" is the default state for new inventions. The time and manner of invention and evolution do not yield to government nor even recognize its purview. I think it's becoming clear to all of us that the internet will not abide government and I really don't want it to have to come to a head in the form of violence. Think about it this way: Seven generations hence, do you really think that internet will be a triviality to be 'regulated' by cronies?
- chaz72 11y agoLegal is the default state for devices that don't use public roads, public airwaves, etc.
- jMyles 11y agoThis is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There's no reason that roads and airwaves need to be managed by violence.
- gress 11y agoHow do you suggest dealing with drunk drivers or getaway cars?
- gnaritas 11y agoLaw doesn't require reason, it's a popularity contest, not a theorem.
- jMyles 11y agoSurely you realize that this position is not universally held? For a primer on an alternative view, start with The Law: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44800/44800-h/44800-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44800/44800-h/44800-h.htm
- gnaritas 11y agoUniversally held or not, it's a fact, not a matter of belief; laws are passed by popular consent, not by adherence to reason.
- jMyles 11y agoMost people don't regard "the law" to be merely the collection of statues passed by whatever government claims power at a given moment. "The law" is subject to incredible debate and scrutiny - this is the reason, for example, for constitutional courts. It is also the basis for revolution. What if more than one entity claims to be the legitimate government? Then what is 'the law'? Merely reading the federal register is not sufficient to inform someone about the particulars of the law. Please - read the essay and see if you are find "the law" to be a matter of fact.
- epistasis 11y agoYour brevity and weird use of quotation marks makes your comment somewhat ambiguous, and I can come up with a few interpretations: 1) that the government should not have the power to enable or disable this new business model, or 2) that it's inappropriate for companies to have such access with the "regulators" as they may inappropriately influence the regulators outside of public discussion. Regarding one, it has to be completely appropriate for entry into an existing field that has proven to be highly dangerous and is therefore highly regulated field. Secondly, it also appropriate for those who are entering the field with a new technology to be able to explain to regulators about the new technology. In highly regulated fields like pharmaceuticals, those proposing new products for approval have many such meetings, and these meetings have not led to the appearance or accusations of undue influence. Rather in that field the problem has been deceit or misinterpretation of statistics.
- Animats 11y agoCalifornia allows autonomous vehicles, but the manufacturer has to take responsibility for any damage or injuries, and report all accidents to DMV. That's reasonable. While some auto companies would like to continue the current "blame the driver" model, that isn't going to work with full autonomy. Early commercial self-driving cars will probably be leased, with terms that include insurance. That eliminates any arguments over who pays in an accident.