4 ms·

I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc c

I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. The wisest form of regulation is to assume bad actors from step 1 and try to create systems where the bad actors are encouraged to abide the rules, not out of threats, but because it benefits them in some way. For instance, the EU are aiming to force Netflix (and similar operations) to have 30% of their catalogue sourced from local productions... or else. It's not tough to predict the result. They'll license the premium stuff (which they probably already have) and then just stuff the rest with filler to hit the minimum. Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too.

civilitty 8y ago
> I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. So instead we let all of the players become bad actors without consequence? > Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too. And then reward the bad actors for being bad actors in the first place by depriving society of the taxes they owe? I think it's safe to assume that the politicians making those deals will be often be bad actors too, and courts rarely let cities and other governments back out of those deals just because the deal makers were corrupt.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  You're straw manning. The point is you need to consider reality before trying to decide how to tackle problems. Your regulations are not only not going to levy any consequences to bad actors, it's going to directly reward their bad behavior. They're the ones that are going to be able to capably break the law, and work to minimize consequences in any case where they're caught. But the law will severely hamper good actors that try to abide it. I think you realize this which is why you're now resorting to 'Well, so we just them all get away with this without consequence!?' And the answer there that when doing 'something' is less effective than doing nothing, you don't have any choice. To do otherwise is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.

civilitty 8y ago

> I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. So instead we let all of the players become bad actors without consequence? > Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too. And then reward the bad actors for being bad actors in the first place by depriving society of the taxes they owe? I think it's safe to assume that the politicians making those deals will be often be bad actors too, and courts rarely let cities and other governments back out of those deals just because the deal makers were corrupt.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
You're straw manning. The point is you need to consider reality before trying to decide how to tackle problems. Your regulations are not only not going to levy any consequences to bad actors, it's going to directly reward their bad behavior. They're the ones that are going to be able to capably break the law, and work to minimize consequences in any case where they're caught. But the law will severely hamper good actors that try to abide it. I think you realize this which is why you're now resorting to 'Well, so we just them all get away with this without consequence!?' And the answer there that when doing 'something' is less effective than doing nothing, you don't have any choice. To do otherwise is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.