4 ms·

I keep hearing the phrase "evade regulations" with regards to Airbnb, Uber, et al. Why not "increase efficiency", "increase consumer choice", "reduce prices",

I keep hearing the phrase "evade regulations" with regards to Airbnb, Uber, et al. Why not "increase efficiency", "increase consumer choice", "reduce prices", or something more positive? As a user of both services (on both sides for Airbnb) I've been quite happy. "Evade regulations" - let's have some context here people. Think about all the ridiculous things that used to be illegal due to regulations. And all the things that currently are, and are hampering small businesses [0]. We should aim to reduce regulations on transactions between private parties, especially when these transactions leave both parties better off. [0] - http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-government-2010-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-go...

acdha 9y ago
Those are huge companies which employ plenty of marketing & PR people. Why should anyone else spin on their behalf without getting paid? Similarly, while not everything the government does is perfect or the best way to accomplish a particular goal but it's really important to remember that there's a huge industry pushing outrageous stories to get public support for gutting regulations which really matter. We've seen this with e.g. Steven Milloy (the junkscience.com operator) who got his start shilling for the tobacco companies and is a reliable anti-science voice anywhere a large company is trying to halt or reverse regulations. He was one of the leading voices in a quixotic-seeming DDT crusade which turned out to be an attempt to discredit the WHO in Africa when their anti-smoking campaign was cutting into profits[1]. Any time you read one of these outrageous law stories, the first thing you want to check is what it actually says, followed very closely by asking who benefits from you getting outraged by that story or becoming primed to overreact to the concept in general. Going with that BI story, note that the only source for the first claim is a right-wing activist group. The actual statute very clearly shows that they're misrepresenting the law because it actually applies only to forensics work collecting evidence for a court: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB028... Since that story was based on the Institute for Justice's claims and that's full of lawyers, it seems quite unlikely that this is an innocent mistake caused by ignorance of the law rather than a blatant propaganda effort relying on the fact that most people hit forward without checking the sources. 1. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcar...
- acdha 9y ago
  … and for anyone who isn't familiar with IJ, they're a Koch- funded institution with corporate libertarian bent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice The author of that blog post, well, look at that page and ask how reliable a source he is: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/ http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/

acdha 9y ago

Those are huge companies which employ plenty of marketing & PR people. Why should anyone else spin on their behalf without getting paid? Similarly, while not everything the government does is perfect or the best way to accomplish a particular goal but it's really important to remember that there's a huge industry pushing outrageous stories to get public support for gutting regulations which really matter. We've seen this with e.g. Steven Milloy (the junkscience.com operator) who got his start shilling for the tobacco companies and is a reliable anti-science voice anywhere a large company is trying to halt or reverse regulations. He was one of the leading voices in a quixotic-seeming DDT crusade which turned out to be an attempt to discredit the WHO in Africa when their anti-smoking campaign was cutting into profits[1]. Any time you read one of these outrageous law stories, the first thing you want to check is what it actually says, followed very closely by asking who benefits from you getting outraged by that story or becoming primed to overreact to the concept in general. Going with that BI story, note that the only source for the first claim is a right-wing activist group. The actual statute very clearly shows that they're misrepresenting the law because it actually applies only to forensics work collecting evidence for a court: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB028... Since that story was based on the Institute for Justice's claims and that's full of lawyers, it seems quite unlikely that this is an innocent mistake caused by ignorance of the law rather than a blatant propaganda effort relying on the fact that most people hit forward without checking the sources. 1. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcar...

acdha 9y ago
… and for anyone who isn't familiar with IJ, they're a Koch- funded institution with corporate libertarian bent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice The author of that blog post, well, look at that page and ask how reliable a source he is: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/ http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/