3 ms·
This seems like you are saying "The system is broken and cannot work" but that this assertion hinges mainly on the assumption that "new government bureaucracy t
by shuntress 6y ago
This seems like you are saying "The system is broken and cannot work" but that this assertion hinges mainly on the assumption that "new government bureaucracy to manage the standard" is automatically a bad thing.
In reality, there should be both a government bureaucracy and industry consortium for the exact reasons you have laid out.
The industry consortium brings deep technical knowledge and pulls in private companies best interest.
The government bureaucracy brings broad technical knowledge and pulls in the general public's best interest.
Obviously there are significant complexities regarding the effectiveness and social consciousness of either group that are interdependent and potentially dead-locked by external factors (Such as the effectiveness/regulation of lobbying in general). But I don't think that justifies your apparent "Can't win don't try" attitude.
- R0b0t1 6y ago>hinges mainly on the assumption that "new government bureaucracy to manage the standard" is automatically a bad thing. It might be. Do you see consumers clamoring outside the statehouse for more regulation? No? That is likely because they won't benefit from it. I understand sometimes people do not know what is best for them, but I think the bar for telling people how to live their life should be higher. Every day I am impacted by pointless regulations that cost me money while enriching others. A lot of the ills with the tech industry are related to centralization, not lack of regulation. That centralization is often driven by regulation that prevents centralization. That is exactly what this regulation would do.