3 ms·
The inherent nature of regulations mean there is always going to be a 'winner' and a 'loser'. For example I have no doubts that regulations removing lead from g
by fzeroracer 8y ago
The inherent nature of regulations mean there is always going to be a 'winner' and a 'loser'. For example I have no doubts that regulations removing lead from gasoline resulted in lost profits and hurt businesses, but we can also believe that the societal gains were far greater than the losses.
Similarly regulations in favor of privacy for citizens is going to naturally result in some companies, somewhere, having to adapt or take a hit or possibly not survive the transition. That doesn't mean we shouldn't implement those regulations because ultimately the larger monopolistic companies pose a far greater problem than the smaller startups can solve.
- Apocryphon 8y agoI completely agree. I was referring to the GP's framing of the situation as Big Bad Regulation squashing Mom & Pop tech startups- a bogeyman of dubious existence.
- betterunix2 8y agoHow willing are you to invest in an early-stage startup whose founders could be arrested over a data breach? How much of your own money would you be willing to risk? Would you be willing to work as a founder of such a company and take on the risk of jail time? If this "bogeyman" is of "dubious existence" then your answer should not be impacted at all by the nature of the regulation or the punishment for non-compliance.
- Apocryphon 8y agoSure, given how many questionable firms from Theranos to Juicero have been successfully funded. So long as dumb money continues to flow, there is little to fear. When this bout of irrational exuberance does abate, tech will have bigger things to worry about than consumer protection laws.