4 ms·
> The job of the regulators isn't to just kill off specific companies that got too powerful - it's to create conditions where disruption is possible. Broadly s
by fennecfoxen 6y ago
> The job of the regulators isn't to just kill off specific companies that got too powerful - it's to create conditions where disruption is possible.
Broadly speaking, the big regulations tend to create conditions where disruption is harder. Regulatory compliance is often a substantial investment, and a rather big one, thus a barrier to entry; it's a lot easier for big, profitable Google to hire a team of regulatory compliance officers and GDPR architects and the like than it is for a small startup.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThat depends. Often enough, regulatory burden tends to scale with size as well! But I agree that quite a lot of compliance requirements apply to everyone, and that they're much harder for small companies to meet. However, the reason for those requirements isn't, ostensibly, to make disruption difficult - it's to protect the society from problems that can be caused by companies of all sizes equally easily. For example, safety regulations about medical equipment. Or data protection regulations. To the extent these laws make disruption difficult, it's often unfortunate cost of safety. (I understand though that the real world isn't perfect and big players tend to influence these laws to their benefit. But perfect being the enemy of good, and all that.)
- fennecfoxen 6y ago> However, the reason for those requirements isn't, ostensibly, to make disruption difficult Perhaps not. But public choice theory is chock full of unintended consequences.
- realusername 6y agoThat's exactly why we don't need "regulatory compliance" but straight up break up monopolies into multiple independent companies like what should be done in this case here.