4 ms·

Unfortunately many of the entities like google and facebook and others are too entrenched to fail in the next 8 years or so. There isn't enough political will

Unfortunately many of the entities like google and facebook and others are too entrenched to fail in the next 8 years or so. There isn't enough political will (currently) to impose strong regulations in the US, as evidenced by the Zuckerberg hearing, and it will likely take an entire political party embracing the ideals to actually build up the regulatory framework

whataretensors 8y ago
The way I understand regulation is that it usually entrenches the existing players, making it even harder to fail.
- nerdwaller 8y ago
  It definitely seems like it often does, simply by raising the barrier to entry requiring a lot more hoops to jump through.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  That happens because the actual efforts are so watered down that they don't actually stop the offensive actions. Take Money Laundering. One of the largest vehicles is real estate. The National Association of Realtors lobbied hard for an exemption to the AML rules, and they were granted a temporary exemption that was extended multiple times: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title31-vol1-sec103-170.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/pdf/CFR-...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- simias 8y ago
  I often hear this argument on HN (usually to oppose regulations out of principle) but while it obviously happens at times it doesn't have to be. Anti-trust regulations for instance are clearly about encouraging competition. Similarly many jurisdictions price dumping is illegal which is a way to prevent big players from destroying small ones by playing dirty. Regulation is whatever you want it to be. "Regulations are good/bad" makes almost as little sense as "GMOs are good/bad", to take an other usually divisive topic.
  - noonespecial 8y ago
    It doesn't have to be. It just usually ends up working out that way. I don't always lose in Vegas either, but I don't go there looking to drum up money for my my mortgage payment. I think the right way to look at regulation is that is very likely to fail, or arrive with enough unintended consequences that it probably makes things worse but everything else was sure to fail so even though its a long shot, its the best chance we've got so... It's like jumping from the 3rd story of a burning building. It might be our only chance, but we should be damn sure the stairs aren't an option before we take the leap.
    - intended 8y ago
      Not true either - policy depends on the type of market, and whether there is enough political will to make it happen. Several markets tend towards single players (telecom for example) without regulation you will always have a poor economic outcome (for the majority of citizens aka customer Education)
      - noonespecial 8y ago
        Telecom is a good example of an instance where the stairs are clearly blocked. Cosmetology is a perfect example of where the stairs were clearly passable but we jumped anyway. Taxi cabs are a good example of where its not necessarily obvious. Proceed with an abundance of caution. My argument is that we cosmetology more than we telecom and we should head back the other way.
        intended 8y ago
        Don’t know -all the major tech firms in the social media space tend to cluster around the belief that owning the whole network is the core source of value. Matter of fact social dynamics end up putting massive pressure on any firm This does not tend towards anything but scenarios where regulatory intervention is required. Also -intervention is required in scenarios where products are known to subvert or pervert the normal decision making systems of humans - or create unintended side effects. Cigarettes, gambling, addiction or health harming products come to mind. - but I suppose that’s under the umbrella of citizen health and safety.
- pteredactyl 8y ago
  Thank you for saying this. The market will decide. And it's becoming clear to the population who these current players really are.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    The market decided already. They love having no privacy.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - propogandist 8y ago
    The market is oblivious to what's going on. The population only gets to know what they hear from the news media (or their 'social networks'), the same media that's controlled by advertisers. The same advertisers who want to build the market to advance corporate interests. The "market" (and population) will do whatever they are told and privacy is seen as a force that prevents the market from thriving.
  - meko 8y ago
    But what if it turns out the market has the judgement of a drunk teenager?
- cascom 8y ago
  I don’t think the things like the Do Not Call list has entrenched anyone’s position? Happy to hear how I’m wrong. I think there is a big difference between prohibiting certain behaviors and installing a regulatory compliance regime
kelnos 8y ago
My hope in our new GDPR world is one of two things: 1) Since many companies will have to do the work to become GDPR compliant, they will just make the results of that work available to all customers/consumers, not just EU citizens. (I think I read that it seems like this won't be the case for Facebook, but oh well, I'm already on my way out the door for that platform.) 2) There's a long history of the US and EU and other nations working to harmonize many of their laws and regulatory frameworks. Either the US might adopt the GDPR or something GDPR-like out of its own desire to harmonize, or the EU might make the US adopting something GDPR-like a condition of some other trade or legal agreement. Both of these are of course best-case, so I suspect in the end we'll get something... not as good.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  A "right to be forgotten" in the US would be a silver lining in this whole situation, but I don't doubt that Google and Facebook and other entities would lobby hard to prevent that from happening.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Hard to see it ever happening. Nor should it. I'm pretty sure that, if it ever got to that level, the US Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional.

whataretensors 8y ago

The way I understand regulation is that it usually entrenches the existing players, making it even harder to fail.

nerdwaller 8y ago
It definitely seems like it often does, simply by raising the barrier to entry requiring a lot more hoops to jump through.
TAForObvReasons 8y ago
That happens because the actual efforts are so watered down that they don't actually stop the offensive actions. Take Money Laundering. One of the largest vehicles is real estate. The National Association of Realtors lobbied hard for an exemption to the AML rules, and they were granted a temporary exemption that was extended multiple times: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title31-vol1-sec103-170.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/pdf/CFR-...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
simias 8y ago
I often hear this argument on HN (usually to oppose regulations out of principle) but while it obviously happens at times it doesn't have to be. Anti-trust regulations for instance are clearly about encouraging competition. Similarly many jurisdictions price dumping is illegal which is a way to prevent big players from destroying small ones by playing dirty. Regulation is whatever you want it to be. "Regulations are good/bad" makes almost as little sense as "GMOs are good/bad", to take an other usually divisive topic.
- noonespecial 8y ago
  It doesn't have to be. It just usually ends up working out that way. I don't always lose in Vegas either, but I don't go there looking to drum up money for my my mortgage payment. I think the right way to look at regulation is that is very likely to fail, or arrive with enough unintended consequences that it probably makes things worse but everything else was sure to fail so even though its a long shot, its the best chance we've got so... It's like jumping from the 3rd story of a burning building. It might be our only chance, but we should be damn sure the stairs aren't an option before we take the leap.
  - intended 8y ago
    Not true either - policy depends on the type of market, and whether there is enough political will to make it happen. Several markets tend towards single players (telecom for example) without regulation you will always have a poor economic outcome (for the majority of citizens aka customer Education)
    - noonespecial 8y ago
      Telecom is a good example of an instance where the stairs are clearly blocked. Cosmetology is a perfect example of where the stairs were clearly passable but we jumped anyway. Taxi cabs are a good example of where its not necessarily obvious. Proceed with an abundance of caution. My argument is that we cosmetology more than we telecom and we should head back the other way.
      - intended 8y ago
        Don’t know -all the major tech firms in the social media space tend to cluster around the belief that owning the whole network is the core source of value. Matter of fact social dynamics end up putting massive pressure on any firm This does not tend towards anything but scenarios where regulatory intervention is required. Also -intervention is required in scenarios where products are known to subvert or pervert the normal decision making systems of humans - or create unintended side effects. Cigarettes, gambling, addiction or health harming products come to mind. - but I suppose that’s under the umbrella of citizen health and safety.
pteredactyl 8y ago
Thank you for saying this. The market will decide. And it's becoming clear to the population who these current players really are.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  The market decided already. They love having no privacy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- propogandist 8y ago
  The market is oblivious to what's going on. The population only gets to know what they hear from the news media (or their 'social networks'), the same media that's controlled by advertisers. The same advertisers who want to build the market to advance corporate interests. The "market" (and population) will do whatever they are told and privacy is seen as a force that prevents the market from thriving.
- meko 8y ago
  But what if it turns out the market has the judgement of a drunk teenager?
cascom 8y ago
I don’t think the things like the Do Not Call list has entrenched anyone’s position? Happy to hear how I’m wrong. I think there is a big difference between prohibiting certain behaviors and installing a regulatory compliance regime

kelnos 8y ago

My hope in our new GDPR world is one of two things: 1) Since many companies will have to do the work to become GDPR compliant, they will just make the results of that work available to all customers/consumers, not just EU citizens. (I think I read that it seems like this won't be the case for Facebook, but oh well, I'm already on my way out the door for that platform.) 2) There's a long history of the US and EU and other nations working to harmonize many of their laws and regulatory frameworks. Either the US might adopt the GDPR or something GDPR-like out of its own desire to harmonize, or the EU might make the US adopting something GDPR-like a condition of some other trade or legal agreement. Both of these are of course best-case, so I suspect in the end we'll get something... not as good.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
A "right to be forgotten" in the US would be a silver lining in this whole situation, but I don't doubt that Google and Facebook and other entities would lobby hard to prevent that from happening.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Hard to see it ever happening. Nor should it. I'm pretty sure that, if it ever got to that level, the US Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional.