4 ms·

No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.

ghaff 4y ago
Advertising claims are in fact regulated. There just isn't a lot of enforcement but, at normal companies, legal teams are very conservative about making claims in advertising and marketing materials. If I claim our product is better than Brand X, you'd better believe legal is going to want to see the evidence and probably qualify the statement.
- philippejara 4y ago
  Indeed false advertising is a thing and it's not legal(depending on where you live ? it is in most of the world that has teslas at least). The government reaching further than going for false advertising is where the slope gp mentioned would come in I assume, and on that I fully agree.
haswell 4y ago
It is fine (and correct) to be cautious about any situation where the government gets involved and starts setting limits. But to discard an argument entirely is to bury your head in the sand. Regulations are applied to many industries and limit the kinds of claims that can be made about products, and those regulations are important to public safety. Such regulations most often apply to products that involve life or death consequences. A company marketing vitamin supplements can’t claim that the supplements are proven to cure cancer, and that’s a good thing. This is not to say that the government can’t or doesn’t get things wrong. But I’m curious how you feel about limitations placed on financial, food, and pharmaceutical companies. At a minimum, there’s a fraud angle. You shouldn’t be able to claim to sell something that does A when that thing cannot in fact do A. And when A happens to be critical to not dying, the implications of that claim just raise the stakes even higher.
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  The involvement of government is at most the courts to redress the kind of issues you're talking about, which is narrow to the particular situation involved, guided by precedent, but not fixed by it. Fraud, injury, death are all covered here. Heavy-handed regulation I can't back though, in part because it is (increasingly these days) as broad as possible, as vague as possible, ensnaring far more then the initial case merited.
TomSwirly 4y ago
Why would you brag about not reading what someone wrote?
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  I did read it, actually, but there wasn't much of merit there. The usual spend more, make more rules, enforced by someone with a gun somewhere such that bad thing X can't happen again. Then of course, it does. Not bragging, just bored.
giomasce 4y ago
[citation needed]
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  Fair. Although honestly, it should also be on the regulation proposer to say cite why such a rule is necessary, and more importantly, under which conditions, if it doesn't work out, such a rule might be withdrawn. I mean: We've had Medicaid, but still have problems in elderly healthcare. We have the Patriot Act, but still have terrorists. We have a Department of Education, but still have low (possibly lower) quality schools. We have a CDC, that failed in testing and containment of disease. We have an SEC, but SBF's fraud went unabated (although hopefully punished soon). We have an FAA, but still have unworthy aircraft (737 Max looking at you). Perhaps then next round of rules proposed by folk looking to win their next popularity contest will work next time, I just doubt it very much. I just don't see much value in these rules - if bad things keep happening, what was the point? Might as well not have them, and make people directly responsible, through a court of actual law, when actual damages have occurred.

Advertising claims are in fact regulated. There just isn't a lot of enforcement but, at normal companies, legal teams are very conservative about making claims in advertising and marketing materials. If I claim our product is better than Brand X, you'd better believe legal is going to want to see the evidence and probably qualify the statement.

philippejara 4y ago
Indeed false advertising is a thing and it's not legal(depending on where you live ? it is in most of the world that has teslas at least). The government reaching further than going for false advertising is where the slope gp mentioned would come in I assume, and on that I fully agree.

haswell 4y ago

It is fine (and correct) to be cautious about any situation where the government gets involved and starts setting limits. But to discard an argument entirely is to bury your head in the sand. Regulations are applied to many industries and limit the kinds of claims that can be made about products, and those regulations are important to public safety. Such regulations most often apply to products that involve life or death consequences. A company marketing vitamin supplements can’t claim that the supplements are proven to cure cancer, and that’s a good thing. This is not to say that the government can’t or doesn’t get things wrong. But I’m curious how you feel about limitations placed on financial, food, and pharmaceutical companies. At a minimum, there’s a fraud angle. You shouldn’t be able to claim to sell something that does A when that thing cannot in fact do A. And when A happens to be critical to not dying, the implications of that claim just raise the stakes even higher.

strawhatguy 4y ago
The involvement of government is at most the courts to redress the kind of issues you're talking about, which is narrow to the particular situation involved, guided by precedent, but not fixed by it. Fraud, injury, death are all covered here. Heavy-handed regulation I can't back though, in part because it is (increasingly these days) as broad as possible, as vague as possible, ensnaring far more then the initial case merited.

TomSwirly 4y ago

Why would you brag about not reading what someone wrote?

strawhatguy 4y ago
I did read it, actually, but there wasn't much of merit there. The usual spend more, make more rules, enforced by someone with a gun somewhere such that bad thing X can't happen again. Then of course, it does. Not bragging, just bored.

giomasce 4y ago

[citation needed]

strawhatguy 4y ago
Fair. Although honestly, it should also be on the regulation proposer to say cite why such a rule is necessary, and more importantly, under which conditions, if it doesn't work out, such a rule might be withdrawn. I mean: We've had Medicaid, but still have problems in elderly healthcare. We have the Patriot Act, but still have terrorists. We have a Department of Education, but still have low (possibly lower) quality schools. We have a CDC, that failed in testing and containment of disease. We have an SEC, but SBF's fraud went unabated (although hopefully punished soon). We have an FAA, but still have unworthy aircraft (737 Max looking at you). Perhaps then next round of rules proposed by folk looking to win their next popularity contest will work next time, I just doubt it very much. I just don't see much value in these rules - if bad things keep happening, what was the point? Might as well not have them, and make people directly responsible, through a court of actual law, when actual damages have occurred.