5 ms·

Tony Fadell says, > I think that manufacturers and app developers need to take on this responsibility, before government regulators decide to step in. Tim Coo

Tony Fadell says, > I think that manufacturers and app developers need to take on this responsibility, before government regulators decide to step in. Tim Cook recently said, "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation". And Tony Fadell expresses a similar idea here. That no regulation is the best idea and that companies should "behave" so that the status quo of no regulation continues. But how do they keep these opinions in the face of all the enormous evidence that companies are very specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate? The very structure of a corporation today means it is incentivized to sneak by and almost break as many laws as possible to be short-term profitable. This is incongruent with long-term health, growth, capitalism, and everything else, because it is a strong forcing factor towards very bad corporate behaviour. Constantly lobbying for "no regulation" or to act quickly before those big-bad-regulators come in to protect consumers from poison and addiction makes no sense. Companies will behave badly as long as the law allows it. Suggesting that the companies should behave better while suggesting that there should be absolutely no consequence for bad behaviour legally is a bizarre doubethink. I don't get it.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Just wishful thinking. It's true that best regulation is self-regulation, and it's also true that companies in general are unable to self-regulate. A recently discussed clear example of that is privacy in the EU - the original cookie law was a gentle nudge to encourage the market to self-regulate. The market didn't, so now we have GDPR.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > It's true that best regulation is self-regulation You take this as a fact, so do the billionare execs at Apple, but it just isn't true. You can define "best" in however way you want to make it true, but any reasonable definition won't let that happen. Best for whom? Best for the billionares? Maybe, but that's not best for the rest of us. Regulation is important in a healthy capitalistic society. Regulation by government, which is theoretically run by elected representatives, is not a bad thing like you suggest it is. It is a steadying hand that helps a market and a society run stably, rather than run amok with fast-paced greed that outpaces ability to sustain itself. The best regulation is not regulation that the hundreds of millions of people in the USA are not even allowed to know exists because it is a corporate secret. No, that is not the best regulation. The best regulation is carefully written, sustainable, fair, reasonable regulation written with unbiased industry experts, the population itself, the government itself. Trusting the most elite, rich class of secretive billionaries in the world to self-regulate is not the "best regulation", not even for them. They will get more money if they just agreed and allowed normal government processes to continue without their lobbying and interference to create a no-regulation environment that wreaks havoc on the rest of society.
jryle80 9y ago
> The very structure of a corporation today means it is incentivized to sneak by and almost break as many laws as possible to be short-term profitable Can you elaborate on how corporation today are structured toward short term profitability? and how we can change it to balance between "do no evil" vs. profitability?
DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
> Tim Cook recently said, "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation". This quote was made with regard specifically to Facebook's recent problems with privacy, and Cook then immediately said: “However, I think we’re beyond that here.” Clearly he thinks regulation can be necessary sometimes, and specifically he has been an advocate for user privacy. I don't know that he intended these words to be applied generally to all companies for all issues. > But how do they keep these opinions in the face of all the enormous evidence that companies are very specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate? 1. I don't think companies are "specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate." Where did you get that from? While it may be true that this is often the case, it seems odd to suggest that this is a specific part of the design of a corporation. 2. Apple has self-regulated with regards to user privacy and security, in ways that other companies have not. They have deliberately made themselves known for not selling user data, and have drawn direct comparisons between themselves and other companies for not collecting significant amounts of user data to be used for any purpose. I dunno, your points don't really seem very well researched. You said "Companies will behave badly as long as the law allows it" and I certainly agree with this to an extent (and this seems to be your main point), but your overly strong statements ("corporations ... break as many laws as possible") reduce the effectiveness of your thesis.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > Cook then immediately said: “However, I think we’re beyond that here.” Clearly he thinks regulation can be necessary sometimes If there is even a slightest chance of a hundred-billion dollar corporation ignoring morals and helping foreign powers install a dictator and destroy truth in publishing and trust in America, then it should be clear that Regulation was required from the start. There is no "oops now we get it we should have had regulation for this particular instance". You can't do that, it's too late. Regulation was required from the beginning. It always is. > 1. I don't think companies are "specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate." Where did you get that from? While it may be true that this is often the case, it seems odd to suggest that this is a specific part of the design of a corporation. There's another reply to me asking this, but I'm not sure how to respond. It just seems obvious to me that the tragedy of the commons situation that results from raw competition (and enshrined in corporate structure, tax law, etc) results in corporations being incentivized to find ways "around the rules" to get a competitive "advantage" over others. > Apple has self-regulated with regards to user privacy and security, in ways that other companies have not. You don't know this, though. You can't know, because you can by definition never know what "self-regulation" a company might be doing. From the outside, all Apple is doing here is marketing material. You can't know what their self-regulation means.
Reedx 9y ago
Yeah, company level self-regulation doesn't seem to work very well. But maybe it could be done at an industry level? Like the game industry did with the ESRB.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Just wishful thinking. It's true that best regulation is self-regulation, and it's also true that companies in general are unable to self-regulate. A recently discussed clear example of that is privacy in the EU - the original cookie law was a gentle nudge to encourage the market to self-regulate. The market didn't, so now we have GDPR.

cryptoz 9y ago
> It's true that best regulation is self-regulation You take this as a fact, so do the billionare execs at Apple, but it just isn't true. You can define "best" in however way you want to make it true, but any reasonable definition won't let that happen. Best for whom? Best for the billionares? Maybe, but that's not best for the rest of us. Regulation is important in a healthy capitalistic society. Regulation by government, which is theoretically run by elected representatives, is not a bad thing like you suggest it is. It is a steadying hand that helps a market and a society run stably, rather than run amok with fast-paced greed that outpaces ability to sustain itself. The best regulation is not regulation that the hundreds of millions of people in the USA are not even allowed to know exists because it is a corporate secret. No, that is not the best regulation. The best regulation is carefully written, sustainable, fair, reasonable regulation written with unbiased industry experts, the population itself, the government itself. Trusting the most elite, rich class of secretive billionaries in the world to self-regulate is not the "best regulation", not even for them. They will get more money if they just agreed and allowed normal government processes to continue without their lobbying and interference to create a no-regulation environment that wreaks havoc on the rest of society.

jryle80 9y ago

> The very structure of a corporation today means it is incentivized to sneak by and almost break as many laws as possible to be short-term profitable Can you elaborate on how corporation today are structured toward short term profitability? and how we can change it to balance between "do no evil" vs. profitability?

DonaldPShimoda 9y ago

> Tim Cook recently said, "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation". This quote was made with regard specifically to Facebook's recent problems with privacy, and Cook then immediately said: “However, I think we’re beyond that here.” Clearly he thinks regulation can be necessary sometimes, and specifically he has been an advocate for user privacy. I don't know that he intended these words to be applied generally to all companies for all issues. > But how do they keep these opinions in the face of all the enormous evidence that companies are very specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate? 1. I don't think companies are "specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate." Where did you get that from? While it may be true that this is often the case, it seems odd to suggest that this is a specific part of the design of a corporation. 2. Apple has self-regulated with regards to user privacy and security, in ways that other companies have not. They have deliberately made themselves known for not selling user data, and have drawn direct comparisons between themselves and other companies for not collecting significant amounts of user data to be used for any purpose. I dunno, your points don't really seem very well researched. You said "Companies will behave badly as long as the law allows it" and I certainly agree with this to an extent (and this seems to be your main point), but your overly strong statements ("corporations ... break as many laws as possible") reduce the effectiveness of your thesis.

cryptoz 9y ago
> Cook then immediately said: “However, I think we’re beyond that here.” Clearly he thinks regulation can be necessary sometimes If there is even a slightest chance of a hundred-billion dollar corporation ignoring morals and helping foreign powers install a dictator and destroy truth in publishing and trust in America, then it should be clear that Regulation was required from the start. There is no "oops now we get it we should have had regulation for this particular instance". You can't do that, it's too late. Regulation was required from the beginning. It always is. > 1. I don't think companies are "specifically designed to be unable to self-regulate." Where did you get that from? While it may be true that this is often the case, it seems odd to suggest that this is a specific part of the design of a corporation. There's another reply to me asking this, but I'm not sure how to respond. It just seems obvious to me that the tragedy of the commons situation that results from raw competition (and enshrined in corporate structure, tax law, etc) results in corporations being incentivized to find ways "around the rules" to get a competitive "advantage" over others. > Apple has self-regulated with regards to user privacy and security, in ways that other companies have not. You don't know this, though. You can't know, because you can by definition never know what "self-regulation" a company might be doing. From the outside, all Apple is doing here is marketing material. You can't know what their self-regulation means.

Reedx 9y ago

Yeah, company level self-regulation doesn't seem to work very well. But maybe it could be done at an industry level? Like the game industry did with the ESRB.