2 ms·
To be fair, I can see at least some sense in it. Specifically, it seems like almost every law of any complexity has unintended consequences. In general, those c
by RHSeeger 6y ago
To be fair, I can see at least some sense in it. Specifically, it seems like almost every law of any complexity has unintended consequences. In general, those consequences are negative. Having an extra law on the books means one more thing that can go wrong. As such, creating a law that has no actual benefit (nobody will break) has a fair chance to have a negative impact on society.
Conceptually, it's not unlike adding the hardware to a car for a feature nobody will use. It's something that can break, for no benefit.
All that being said, I do not agree the law would be useless because I assume the ISPs will do everything in their power to make money at the expense of the well being of everyone else.
- kiba 6y agoTo the extent that is true, it is because congresscritters and politicians have no incentive to monitor laws until something visibly bad happens. Also, we have absolutely shoddy education in the humanities. Economics, psychology, world history, etc, are 'useless' until you're reminded that we have to deal with human beings doing what they do. Anyway, I don't see why ISPs would not break net neutrality laws especially if they can nickel and dime people even more.