5 ms·

Regulation by which only massive players can abide is effectively killing any small or not well funded business. We have civil law. If a company harms you, you

Regulation by which only massive players can abide is effectively killing any small or not well funded business. We have civil law. If a company harms you, you can sue. No need to create regulation to make markets less competitive.

jrm4 4y ago
This is an incredibly oversimplified and useless take of the sort that people need to stop parroting. Regulations work very frequently; they're around us ALL the time. Yes, they sometimes fail or don't work perfectly.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  The parent comment mentions issues with cybersecurity. There are measures companies can take to reduce their likelihood of breach, but we all know they humans make errors that are exploitable all the time. Just the other day there was a thread about an exploitable bit in the Linux kernel that had been there for the prior 10 years. My point is that unless the regulation we're discussing is merely marginal in cost of adoption, there will be definite harm caused to small businesses trying to bootstrap from the ground up. It's not some bogeyman of an argument. It is quite a real possibility.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Again, what you're saying is potentially and practically equivalent to: "If we put regulations on safety measures in new buildings, such as railings and fire escapes, it will hurt small businesses." Maybe it will. It's still not an intelligent point. Stop.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Surely there is a cost benefit analysis to be had regarding any regulation? It's not always as trivial as railing and fire escapes. What would the cost of building become if every building had to be built to withstand 9.0 magnitude earthquakes or be resistant to bunker-buster bombs? Such policies do a number of things: 1. Raise consumer costs since these new regulations need to pass the costs to the consumer. 2. Inhibit competition since now new businesses need to have to know-how or pay for super specialists or some external service to get them complaint before they can even offer a product or service. I'm not discounting all regulation, but at some point consumers can't consume blindly and need to be thoughtful. Some businesses may get third party certs stating they're compliant with industry leading security practices. They can charge a premium. Other companies may target more elastic consumers that want the service but don't care about whether their data, etc. is protected. They can choose to buy the products/services without certs, as they would likely he cheaper to differentiate themselves.
pixl97 4y ago
Ah yes, why don't you also talk about how well this works when one party lives in poverty and the other party spends 10's of millions on lawyers and media clips attempting to discredit the affected party. Just please stop with this tired and broken line of thought, it does not work out for the individual in the end.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  > Ah yes, why don't you also talk about how well this works when one party lives in poverty and the other party spends 10's of millions on lawyers and media clips attempting to discredit the affected party. What are you talking about? My point was related to anticompetitive regulation, which is generally supported by the wealthy since it increases barriers to entry and reduces their competition.

jrm4 4y ago

This is an incredibly oversimplified and useless take of the sort that people need to stop parroting. Regulations work very frequently; they're around us ALL the time. Yes, they sometimes fail or don't work perfectly.

hellojesus 4y ago
The parent comment mentions issues with cybersecurity. There are measures companies can take to reduce their likelihood of breach, but we all know they humans make errors that are exploitable all the time. Just the other day there was a thread about an exploitable bit in the Linux kernel that had been there for the prior 10 years. My point is that unless the regulation we're discussing is merely marginal in cost of adoption, there will be definite harm caused to small businesses trying to bootstrap from the ground up. It's not some bogeyman of an argument. It is quite a real possibility.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Again, what you're saying is potentially and practically equivalent to: "If we put regulations on safety measures in new buildings, such as railings and fire escapes, it will hurt small businesses." Maybe it will. It's still not an intelligent point. Stop.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Surely there is a cost benefit analysis to be had regarding any regulation? It's not always as trivial as railing and fire escapes. What would the cost of building become if every building had to be built to withstand 9.0 magnitude earthquakes or be resistant to bunker-buster bombs? Such policies do a number of things: 1. Raise consumer costs since these new regulations need to pass the costs to the consumer. 2. Inhibit competition since now new businesses need to have to know-how or pay for super specialists or some external service to get them complaint before they can even offer a product or service. I'm not discounting all regulation, but at some point consumers can't consume blindly and need to be thoughtful. Some businesses may get third party certs stating they're compliant with industry leading security practices. They can charge a premium. Other companies may target more elastic consumers that want the service but don't care about whether their data, etc. is protected. They can choose to buy the products/services without certs, as they would likely he cheaper to differentiate themselves.

pixl97 4y ago

Ah yes, why don't you also talk about how well this works when one party lives in poverty and the other party spends 10's of millions on lawyers and media clips attempting to discredit the affected party. Just please stop with this tired and broken line of thought, it does not work out for the individual in the end.

hellojesus 4y ago
> Ah yes, why don't you also talk about how well this works when one party lives in poverty and the other party spends 10's of millions on lawyers and media clips attempting to discredit the affected party. What are you talking about? My point was related to anticompetitive regulation, which is generally supported by the wealthy since it increases barriers to entry and reduces their competition.