3 ms·
Conversely, hopelessly vague regulation like this ensures that big evil companies just implement ineffective token measures and then spend millions of dollars i
by nikitaga 5y ago
Conversely, hopelessly vague regulation like this ensures that big evil companies just implement ineffective token measures and then spend millions of dollars in court to determine which small tweaks to their small measures satisfy the given judge.
Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster, after a few years of legal proceedings of course.
Litigation has got to be the worst way to define new regulations. It's slow, expensive, and uncertain. It's also not as "adaptive" as you claim, because of the power of precedent – big weight given to past decisions. It also unfairly penalizes a small number of entities who have to bear the burden of litigation to resolve the regulatory questions for the benefit of the whole industry – and that goes for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The only reason litigation might look attractive in comparison is that the Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional – both the people in it, and their processes. Maybe that's what should be fixed for legislation to be better. Somehow.
- robbrown451 5y ago> Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster That seems like how a company would game regulation, while a judge or jury can better say "that's just an ineffective tweak". Regardless, if facebook and instagram etc implemented something like that, it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago>while a judge or jury can better say "that's just an ineffective tweak". yea, in a few years. By the time the case is settled, tech would already move on to the next big scheme to extract data or engagement. I saw this in real time while the game industry was deliberating over the concept of lootboxes. Send out some lobbyists, convince the ESRB that they are fine, etc. The goal was just to stall for time, not win. By the time some countries started banning them, many studios already jumped ship to the "battle pass" model. They don't even care if lootboxes are banned anymore The industry moves too fast to be penalized like this. >it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds. sure, just like how most social media talk about productive topics and recommend healthy, wholesome options in their feeds.