4 ms·
That is a lot worse than I imagined. So basically this would be terrible or meaningless for workers/consumers?
by guerrilla 4y ago
That is a lot worse than I imagined. So basically this would be terrible or meaningless for workers/consumers?
- noasaservice 4y agoSo basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies... which already likely do the bare minimum. I'm not sure of the term. It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.
- jedberg 4y agoRegulatory capture.
- tomatotomato37 4y agoIt's almost like blindly calling for regulation without accounting for the political/monetary influence of those being regulated is a bad idea or something
- ahtihn 4y ago> blindly calling for regulation [...] is a bad idea What do you expect people to do instead?
- water-your-self 4y agoCall for individual protections, possibly with a solvent soaked rag in a bottle, typically.
- tomatotomato37 4y agoIt's like a genie wish. You have to be very specific in what you are asking for.
- rabuse 4y agoYep, always used to stifle competition. Regulate the hell out of it, so new companies can't even begin without millions up front.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoSmall companies are exempt from CCPA?
- zeruch 4y agoThe term is probably "regulatory capture"
- guerrilla 4y ago> It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market. barriers to entry [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
- root_axis 4y ago> So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies The bill outlines exemptions for business making less than 40 million annually. I haven't read the whole thing so it's possible I missed something, could you point out which sections you're referring to to draw that conclusion?