3 ms·
"In the end, like almost all other arguments about The Right Thing To Do, this is an argument about resource (re)distribution" Like many things there are two s
by perl4ever 7y ago
"In the end, like almost all other arguments about The Right Thing To Do, this is an argument about resource (re)distribution"
Like many things there are two separate issues:
1) If everyone did it, there would be a cost to society in that fewer products would be made, given the higher overhead, skills, etc. required.
2) If you (some particular person) did it, it would make you uncompetitive.
People suggest regulation because it fixes (2) without requiring any individual to unilaterally decide to sacrifice for the common good. Issue (1) is a finite cost that may or may not be considered worthwhile.
It's really weird for people to continually take the position that they can't do anything altruistic and be against society forcing everybody to. Shouldn't it be one or the other?
- sandoooo 7y agoI see a parallel between this and the pushback against Electron, and the counter-argument is the same: more choices in software in general is a good thing, and lowering the cost of entry by dropping requirements in accessibility or performance (Electron) gets society more choices in software. The hypothetical csv-cruncher behaves a lot like a compiler - imagine if we had to make every one of those compatible with screenreaders and 20-year-old hardware running obsolete OSes. Imagine how much shittier everything would be with this additional burden to carry, then multiply it by every component in a typical software stack. This is the cost. It is finite, because everything is finite, but that doesn't stop it from being very large. So to sum up: regulating this is detrimental to society.