I'm not against regulating the demand in principle, I'm against IMPOSING the regulation from PRIVATE parties, no matter if this very specific case is an experim

I'm not against regulating the demand in principle, I'm against IMPOSING the regulation from PRIVATE parties, no matter if this very specific case is an experiment on volunteers. We need to state the principle that ONLY public bodies can act on public, private parties can ASK, can eventually propose different tariffs to incentivize or disincentivize certain behaviors but MUST NOT have any control at all. The danger of founding a car who initially start to display ads, than make seeing them mandatory just to open the door, than get briked from remote is so high that any potential step in this direction must be nuked with an extraordinary excessive and fierce force. Beside that: a general regulation even from public bodies is an issue sometimes because you need mechanisms to avoid it, for instance for medical reasons case-by-case (in this thermostat settings case), but if such mechanism do exists surely get abused. So in the end my idea is that if something is needed but scarce than can't be private at all. So for instance TLCs, energy grid, water etc can't be given to private company at all if they can't guarantee full services all the time with the sole exception of extraordinary events that can't last more then a very little time (like a flood, a storm etc vs "eh, there is a global crisis who might last years").