4 ms·
Do you mean because those 'small Internet service providers' would be included in his 'larger than $MARKET_SHARE' group, or because it would mean no one was kic
by samhw 5y ago
Do you mean because those 'small Internet service providers' would be included in his 'larger than $MARKET_SHARE' group, or because it would mean no one was kicked out of the incumbent services and therefore there would be fewer new customers available?
- shadowgovt 5y agoI mean because a company tends to explode from "smaller than $MARKET_SHARE" to "larger than $MARKET_SHARE" in a discontinuous fashion. So since a company can't really predict when it will happen, every company providing service would need to prep from the ground up to provide the described level of relatively non-automated high-touch support this proposal describes. It'd raise the cost to build a startup. ... not to imply it's a bad idea; there's no golden rule that says an ecosystem of millions of competing companies is always a superior alternative to a few well-regulated players. It's just important to note the hidden costs.
- matsemann 5y agoSame argument used against gdpr all the time, and proven false all the time. It's easy to be small and compliant.
- shadowgovt 5y agoYou can comply with GDPR by refraining from collecting data. You can't provide an online service while refraining from providing an online service.
- bee_rider 5y agoI think this limitation is an artifact of the fact that the proposal is an idea being tossed out on social media. A real law would have some sort of grace period. That grace period could be chosen arbitrarily, it should be set such that any well-run company would have time to respond.
- OkayPhysicist 5y agoIf you have automated rule enforcement, then you already have a formal specification of your rules, and informing the user of what rule they have broken should be trivial. If you have humans doing the bans manually, then you already have a human in the loop.
- shadowgovt 5y agoThe appeals process mandate is the part that would add a lot of cost that doesn't currently exist. It puts a human in the loop on the back side of the automated process. And once you add an appeals process, you can expect everybody to attempt to go through it... False positives will of course appeal, and bad actors have no disincentive to appeal for the simple sake of gumming up the system for fun.
- josephcsible 5y agoOkay, how about instead of coming into effect immediately after reaching some market share level, it comes into effect 1 year after you first reach that level?
- samhw 5y agoActually I think you're right, yeah. I don't know why your original comment is being downvoted. I suppose it testifies to the fact that comments are downvoted either because they're too stupid or too smart for the audience.