3 ms·

A few months ago everybody was saying how awesome it was that the EU was regulating the Internet. You don't get to criticize them now. Or, well, I guess you can

A few months ago everybody was saying how awesome it was that the EU was regulating the Internet. You don't get to criticize them now. Or, well, I guess you can try, but that's not how things work in reality. Once the principle is established that the state (or suprastate) gets to impose regulations in an area of life, it may turn out that people you don't like work for the state also and they will do it too. To mix some farm metaphors, the chickens are coming home now and it's too late to shut the barn door.

Latteland 8y ago
I disagree. There can be bad and good regulation. Just like there are bad and good comments. GDPR seems like a good idea, still. I'm guessing you think there should be no regulation of the internet. What about posting naked pics of you against your will - this actually happens, it's not a strawman argument. Net neutrality is a good thing, it doesn't happen without a regulation mandating it.
- MrEldritch 8y ago
  The argument is basically just that the government is so terrible at actually reliably making good laws, and at avoiding terrible unintended long-term consequences from even the best laws, and is so reliable about turning even the most well-intentioned and well-thought-out regulations into jumping-off precedent and justification for really bad ideas, that- -despite the fact that pure Internet anarchy is obviously not the optimal solution, or even a particularly good idea- -letting the government make well-intentioned and obviously-good laws about it is still worse.
munchbunny 8y ago
I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are actually two debates: 1. Whether to regulate the internet. 2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one. #2 is the debate that happens for every law in a democratic system. If you agree with the democratic system on principle, then you already acknowledge that the democracy may not choose the laws you want. #1 is what you're talking about. But it's not an all or nothing deal. You can believe that the internet should be regulated and simultaneously believe that any specific regulation is a bad one.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are actually two debates: 1. Whether to regulate the internet. 2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one. How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year. I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting. Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation?
  - munchbunny 8y ago
    How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year. Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall better than dealing with all of the bad proposals. However, bringing it back to the post I was responding to, everyone wasn't celebrating the EU regulating the internet, everyone was celebrating privacy regulation in an instance where the system had gotten to a bad place on its own. I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting. You and I agree that the potential benefits are tiny compared to the harms of allowing texting while driving. On the other hand, you and I disagree that the balance is in favor of deregulating the internet. That's a crucial difference. We never get to question 2 with texting while driving. We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time. Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation? Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in multiple ways, one of which is more legislation. That said, your question sounded to me like a rhetorical way to say that the risk of bad legislation isn't worth the occasional good one. Fair point. I disagree, but fair point. I don't think it's a useful debate to have because it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
eudora 8y ago
I gotta say, the only difference I've noticed with the GPDR is I've got one more annoying popup to click. I think it's supposed to allow me to deny cookies or customise them, but enough sites have just looked through to some huge unusable page when I click "more info" that I don't bother anymore.

Latteland 8y ago

I disagree. There can be bad and good regulation. Just like there are bad and good comments. GDPR seems like a good idea, still. I'm guessing you think there should be no regulation of the internet. What about posting naked pics of you against your will - this actually happens, it's not a strawman argument. Net neutrality is a good thing, it doesn't happen without a regulation mandating it.

MrEldritch 8y ago
The argument is basically just that the government is so terrible at actually reliably making good laws, and at avoiding terrible unintended long-term consequences from even the best laws, and is so reliable about turning even the most well-intentioned and well-thought-out regulations into jumping-off precedent and justification for really bad ideas, that- -despite the fact that pure Internet anarchy is obviously not the optimal solution, or even a particularly good idea- -letting the government make well-intentioned and obviously-good laws about it is still worse.

munchbunny 8y ago

I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are actually two debates: 1. Whether to regulate the internet. 2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one. #2 is the debate that happens for every law in a democratic system. If you agree with the democratic system on principle, then you already acknowledge that the democracy may not choose the laws you want. #1 is what you're talking about. But it's not an all or nothing deal. You can believe that the internet should be regulated and simultaneously believe that any specific regulation is a bad one.

stcredzero 8y ago
I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are actually two debates: 1. Whether to regulate the internet. 2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one. How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year. I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting. Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation?
- munchbunny 8y ago
  How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year. Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall better than dealing with all of the bad proposals. However, bringing it back to the post I was responding to, everyone wasn't celebrating the EU regulating the internet, everyone was celebrating privacy regulation in an instance where the system had gotten to a bad place on its own. I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting. You and I agree that the potential benefits are tiny compared to the harms of allowing texting while driving. On the other hand, you and I disagree that the balance is in favor of deregulating the internet. That's a crucial difference. We never get to question 2 with texting while driving. We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time. Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation? Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in multiple ways, one of which is more legislation. That said, your question sounded to me like a rhetorical way to say that the risk of bad legislation isn't worth the occasional good one. Fair point. I disagree, but fair point. I don't think it's a useful debate to have because it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet.
  - stcredzero 8y ago

eudora 8y ago

I gotta say, the only difference I've noticed with the GPDR is I've got one more annoying popup to click. I think it's supposed to allow me to deny cookies or customise them, but enough sites have just looked through to some huge unusable page when I click "more info" that I don't bother anymore.