3 ms·

> This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation, is the reason why America has a culture of innovation. I've see

> This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation, is the reason why America has a culture of innovation. I've seen that theory, but my understanding is that striking a proper balance is what fosters innovation; anarchy yields corruption and spoils for the powerful; it does not reward the most productive and innovative. Also, my impression is that other things may be much more important for innovation, especially opportunity for education, for capital, and for access to the market (e.g., rules that prevent vested interests from blocking newcomers from the marketplace). > any solution that requires foregoing independent corporate decision making would be foolish Should we abolish all laws and regulations about safety, fraud, and fairness? Personally, I don't see corporations as having such a great track record that I trust them so implicitly.

pg_bot 8y ago
I'm not advocating for anarchy, just that we stick to the laws that are actually codified. We should be reactive to bad behavior, not proactive. Instead of blanket calls for regulation, we should be specific and considerate when making new rules as they often have unintended consequences. Instead of having to constantly ask for permission, you should be able to read the rules and make decisions independently. You don't hear about the millions of interactions that occur daily without consequence so I believe your views on corporations may be biased.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > We should be reactive to bad behavior, not proactive. The ex-Google employee is calling on Congress to be reactive to Google's activities. Do you agree then with their proposal? I actually don't agree; bad behavior hurts people and that harm should be prevented if reasonably possible. For example, we should be proactive about airplane safety. We should have been proactive about regulating the securitization of mortgates - that would have saved maybe billions of people from harm, many losing their homes, jobs, and savings. Of course, anything can be taken too far ... > Instead of blanket calls for regulation, we should be specific and considerate when making new rules I don't think anyone would disagree, but am I overlooking someone? In fairness, you earlier wrote the following, which seems like a much broader, stronger statement: > any solution that requires foregoing independent corporate decision making would be foolish
- tremon 8y ago
  we should be specific and considerate when making new rules as they often have unintended consequences Shouldn't we be equally specific and considerate when developing/deploying new technology?

pg_bot 8y ago

I'm not advocating for anarchy, just that we stick to the laws that are actually codified. We should be reactive to bad behavior, not proactive. Instead of blanket calls for regulation, we should be specific and considerate when making new rules as they often have unintended consequences. Instead of having to constantly ask for permission, you should be able to read the rules and make decisions independently. You don't hear about the millions of interactions that occur daily without consequence so I believe your views on corporations may be biased.

forapurpose 8y ago
> We should be reactive to bad behavior, not proactive. The ex-Google employee is calling on Congress to be reactive to Google's activities. Do you agree then with their proposal? I actually don't agree; bad behavior hurts people and that harm should be prevented if reasonably possible. For example, we should be proactive about airplane safety. We should have been proactive about regulating the securitization of mortgates - that would have saved maybe billions of people from harm, many losing their homes, jobs, and savings. Of course, anything can be taken too far ... > Instead of blanket calls for regulation, we should be specific and considerate when making new rules I don't think anyone would disagree, but am I overlooking someone? In fairness, you earlier wrote the following, which seems like a much broader, stronger statement: > any solution that requires foregoing independent corporate decision making would be foolish
tremon 8y ago
we should be specific and considerate when making new rules as they often have unintended consequences Shouldn't we be equally specific and considerate when developing/deploying new technology?