6 ms·

It’s counterproductive to label all regulations as if they’re the same. Antitrust laws and consumer protections are very different from something like this des

It’s counterproductive to label all regulations as if they’re the same. Antitrust laws and consumer protections are very different from something like this designed to maximize profits for record labels and publishing companies in character and effect on the world at large. Some regulations are essential to a functional society, while others, like this, are disastrous and serve only to reinforce monopolistic strangleholds.

binmanthrowaway 8y ago
But he said "regulations that stifle", not "regulations that are essential". It seems like people don't even read comments nowadays and just get triggered by keywords.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  “this regulations that stifle” was in somewhat broken syntax, which led me to believe that it was saying something to the effect that (s)he was speaking of regulations in general and saying that they stifled innovation as a whole. Perhaps your mental parse didn’t have that connotation, and I could have been wrong in seeing it that way.
pedro_hab 8y ago
I don't think all regulations are bad, but in my opinion the EU hasn't been adding great regulations, GDPR IMHO wasn't great, I think it does harm innovation and even worse doesn't add much value. If you delete your FB account and they remove you from the public but still use your data privately, for the average Joe, does it really matter? Also does Joe care? I think Joe doesn't care, and the negatives will outweigh the positives. Tech (FAANG) probably should have some regulation, but I am really concerned with the tech people (HN) being so acceptive of regulations that are obviously bad. I'd say defending terrible regulation is not better either.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  I agree. And this is certainly absolutely terrible. I am a big fan of the GDPR. While imperfect, it’s a hell of a lot better than the protections I enjoy.
  - pedro_hab 8y ago
    Thanks, this is what I think we must do, disagree where is acceptable (GDPR), I don't like it, you do, but we should be together screaming this other one is horrible.
kodablah 8y ago
> It’s counterproductive to label all regulations as if they’re the same. I don't see where all regulations were labeled. What's counterproductive is to ignore an obvious trend. And despite the differing motives of the recent tech legislation, their effects are similar and can be summarized by these effects as a whole. I'm not sure where this trend of looking at what laws are "designed" for vs what they actually do came from, but I hope pragmatism returns one day. In the interim, I wish legislators would just sit on their hands.
- awvcs 8y ago
  There is no "obvious trend" in the way that you are suggesting. The copyright directive is bad because copyright legislation is bad. If you want to enforce copyright the directive isn't incorrect, it is just that many people don't want that including myself. Most other reforms including data protection, roaming and payment services are huge steps in the right direction.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Disagree as these internet "reforms" are often only paid lip service, make it harder to build new products, and in practice are rarely enforced anyways. The other obvious trend, as I alluded to previously, is people just claiming something is a step in the right direction based on intent instead of reality. There are lots of ways to make steps in the right direction and these legislative approaches are heavy handed and harmful towards providers with little user benefit.
    - awvcs 8y ago
      Things like GDPR aren't supposed to be enforce in every instance. Similar to things like FCC or CE certification. That is just the better way to have such regulation. When someone complains or something happens, then these things will come into effect. Things like the new roaming rules are essentially universally followed. It used to be extremely cumbersome to get mobile data when travelling, today it is essentially a non-issue. SEPA payments is another similar thing. Other regulation isn't for users at all, but for other businesses. Most users won't directly notice the revised payment directive, but they will very likely get a lot of new service.
tananaev 8y ago
Pretty much any regulation harms business. The smaller the business, the more toll new regulations usually have on it. The more regulations we enact, the more big companies grow and small companies die/not started. It acts like a positive feedback loop because the whole reasons for most regulations in the first place was to tame big evil corporations, which in the end usually benefit more from regulations (less competition). Also, consumer pays for any regulation costs anyway, so everything becomes more expensive with more regulation. It might not be immediately noticeable, but it's definitely the trend in the long term. I'm not saying that we don't need any regulations at all, but I think we should strive to keep it to absolutely bare minimum.
- rad_gruchalski 8y ago
  Hence there are processes in the EU to take care of due dilligence. I take EU over US any day.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  There is no way for these two statements to both be true: 1.) Pretty much any regulation harms business. 2.) Also, consumer pays for any regulation costs anyway, If consumers pay for the regulation, then the business is not harmed. But think about how silly that would sound if you said that to a business person: "Don't worry about government regulations, because your customers will pay for them!" This is an old fallacy: "consumer pays for any regulation costs anyway" Consumers don't pay for regulations except in those situations where demand for a product/service outstrips supply, and therefore the businesses are able to pass the cost along to the consumers. But wherever supply outstrips demand, then the businesses pay for the regulation themselves, via reduced profits and therefore reduced market value. This is simple supply and demand. It is remarkable that so many people are often mislead on this subject.
  - sib 8y ago
    "Consumers don't pay for regulations except in those situations where demand for a product/service outstrips supply." This doesn't make sense. Demand may outstrip supply at a certain price, but that just means that the price must go up. If a market is clearing, then the regulation (or a tax) will be borne by buyers or sellers in proportion to the relationship between the supply and demand elasticities.
Kalium 8y ago
Might it be perhaps worth considering that some approaches to consumer protections might, by accident and coincidence, have side-effects of encouraging oligopolistic strangleholds? You're completely right. Antitrust and consumer laws are very different from those expressly designed to hurt consumers. However, it could be worth remembering that a law's intentions and a law's effects can be different.

binmanthrowaway 8y ago

But he said "regulations that stifle", not "regulations that are essential". It seems like people don't even read comments nowadays and just get triggered by keywords.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
“this regulations that stifle” was in somewhat broken syntax, which led me to believe that it was saying something to the effect that (s)he was speaking of regulations in general and saying that they stifled innovation as a whole. Perhaps your mental parse didn’t have that connotation, and I could have been wrong in seeing it that way.

pedro_hab 8y ago

I don't think all regulations are bad, but in my opinion the EU hasn't been adding great regulations, GDPR IMHO wasn't great, I think it does harm innovation and even worse doesn't add much value. If you delete your FB account and they remove you from the public but still use your data privately, for the average Joe, does it really matter? Also does Joe care? I think Joe doesn't care, and the negatives will outweigh the positives. Tech (FAANG) probably should have some regulation, but I am really concerned with the tech people (HN) being so acceptive of regulations that are obviously bad. I'd say defending terrible regulation is not better either.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
I agree. And this is certainly absolutely terrible. I am a big fan of the GDPR. While imperfect, it’s a hell of a lot better than the protections I enjoy.
- pedro_hab 8y ago
  Thanks, this is what I think we must do, disagree where is acceptable (GDPR), I don't like it, you do, but we should be together screaming this other one is horrible.

kodablah 8y ago

> It’s counterproductive to label all regulations as if they’re the same. I don't see where all regulations were labeled. What's counterproductive is to ignore an obvious trend. And despite the differing motives of the recent tech legislation, their effects are similar and can be summarized by these effects as a whole. I'm not sure where this trend of looking at what laws are "designed" for vs what they actually do came from, but I hope pragmatism returns one day. In the interim, I wish legislators would just sit on their hands.

awvcs 8y ago
There is no "obvious trend" in the way that you are suggesting. The copyright directive is bad because copyright legislation is bad. If you want to enforce copyright the directive isn't incorrect, it is just that many people don't want that including myself. Most other reforms including data protection, roaming and payment services are huge steps in the right direction.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Disagree as these internet "reforms" are often only paid lip service, make it harder to build new products, and in practice are rarely enforced anyways. The other obvious trend, as I alluded to previously, is people just claiming something is a step in the right direction based on intent instead of reality. There are lots of ways to make steps in the right direction and these legislative approaches are heavy handed and harmful towards providers with little user benefit.
  - awvcs 8y ago
    Things like GDPR aren't supposed to be enforce in every instance. Similar to things like FCC or CE certification. That is just the better way to have such regulation. When someone complains or something happens, then these things will come into effect. Things like the new roaming rules are essentially universally followed. It used to be extremely cumbersome to get mobile data when travelling, today it is essentially a non-issue. SEPA payments is another similar thing. Other regulation isn't for users at all, but for other businesses. Most users won't directly notice the revised payment directive, but they will very likely get a lot of new service.

tananaev 8y ago

Pretty much any regulation harms business. The smaller the business, the more toll new regulations usually have on it. The more regulations we enact, the more big companies grow and small companies die/not started. It acts like a positive feedback loop because the whole reasons for most regulations in the first place was to tame big evil corporations, which in the end usually benefit more from regulations (less competition). Also, consumer pays for any regulation costs anyway, so everything becomes more expensive with more regulation. It might not be immediately noticeable, but it's definitely the trend in the long term. I'm not saying that we don't need any regulations at all, but I think we should strive to keep it to absolutely bare minimum.

rad_gruchalski 8y ago
Hence there are processes in the EU to take care of due dilligence. I take EU over US any day.
lkrubner 8y ago
There is no way for these two statements to both be true: 1.) Pretty much any regulation harms business. 2.) Also, consumer pays for any regulation costs anyway, If consumers pay for the regulation, then the business is not harmed. But think about how silly that would sound if you said that to a business person: "Don't worry about government regulations, because your customers will pay for them!" This is an old fallacy: "consumer pays for any regulation costs anyway" Consumers don't pay for regulations except in those situations where demand for a product/service outstrips supply, and therefore the businesses are able to pass the cost along to the consumers. But wherever supply outstrips demand, then the businesses pay for the regulation themselves, via reduced profits and therefore reduced market value. This is simple supply and demand. It is remarkable that so many people are often mislead on this subject.
- sib 8y ago
  "Consumers don't pay for regulations except in those situations where demand for a product/service outstrips supply." This doesn't make sense. Demand may outstrip supply at a certain price, but that just means that the price must go up. If a market is clearing, then the regulation (or a tax) will be borne by buyers or sellers in proportion to the relationship between the supply and demand elasticities.

Kalium 8y ago

Might it be perhaps worth considering that some approaches to consumer protections might, by accident and coincidence, have side-effects of encouraging oligopolistic strangleholds? You're completely right. Antitrust and consumer laws are very different from those expressly designed to hurt consumers. However, it could be worth remembering that a law's intentions and a law's effects can be different.