4 ms·

> By creating these massive overcomplicated bills, they make sure only a handful of individuals are capable of reading them and the rest of us Of course it is

> By creating these massive overcomplicated bills, they make sure only a handful of individuals are capable of reading them and the rest of us Of course it is by design, not necessarily for evil purposes though. First of all, the fact that laws are written in a "natural language" doesn't imply they can be fully understood by everyone, they are more like a math formula, it's only less obvious that laws need to be crafted in a way that requires an extensive knowledge of the subject. They're readable, but not always intelligible. Natural languages are ambiguous, laws try to avoid it as much as they can, changing a word can often change the law intentions completely. Secondly, exactly like scientific papers, if they have some kind of impact in the community, experts are gonna look at them, you can bet on it (also don't forget the army of lawyers companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Meta, etc. have on their payroll). And they will cover the entire spectrum from the most complacent to the biggest opponents and everything in between, so it's not actually like they will pass unnoticed. There's too much to gain in exposing your political opponents (and sometimes allies) to not take advantage from it. No professional politician would miss the opportunity. It's no secret that many politicians have a training in law and the reason is obvious. For example in the US of the 535 members who make up Congress, 40% had attended law school. For senators, nearly 54% have obtained a law degree. The House contains 37% law degree holders > We should assume that they are trying to hide something To assume this we should also assume that they - whoever they are, it's not clear to me - are all on board with the "evil plan" which is arguably very far from the facts we can prove. In the game of assuming bad faith, we could equally assume that the opposition to this particular proposal is paid by the big tech corporations to avoid investing a lot of money to update their systems and losing the vendor lock in (WhatsApp messages are readable only by WhatsApp, Instagram messages only by Instagram, and so on...)

Aeolun 4y ago
I think you are assuming too much competence. If lawmakers are anything like other employees, then 80% of them are there just for the paycheck. They’re not going to expend any extra effort to fully understand a complicated law that they’re not particularly invested in. Chances are very few of them actually consider where this could lead, not because they’re malicious, but because they just cannot be bothered. They’re probably working on their own fancy laws that will be much more popular with their voters.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > then 80% of them are there just for the paycheck. 90/10 rule: 10% of the workers do 90% of the work. > I think you are assuming too much competence I'm not assuming any particular competence, competence on the subject is not required to be a lawmaker, if expertise is needed consultants gets hired (I have briefly been a consultant for EU on tech matters). I am simply saying that in places like the EU commission the only thing that matters is to reach a good enough compromise such as it would pass the test of the vote. That's the only thing that is required from a law proposal. And to not break pre-existent laws or other regulations (the Constitution, international treaties, customs, etc.)

Aeolun 4y ago

I think you are assuming too much competence. If lawmakers are anything like other employees, then 80% of them are there just for the paycheck. They’re not going to expend any extra effort to fully understand a complicated law that they’re not particularly invested in. Chances are very few of them actually consider where this could lead, not because they’re malicious, but because they just cannot be bothered. They’re probably working on their own fancy laws that will be much more popular with their voters.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> then 80% of them are there just for the paycheck. 90/10 rule: 10% of the workers do 90% of the work. > I think you are assuming too much competence I'm not assuming any particular competence, competence on the subject is not required to be a lawmaker, if expertise is needed consultants gets hired (I have briefly been a consultant for EU on tech matters). I am simply saying that in places like the EU commission the only thing that matters is to reach a good enough compromise such as it would pass the test of the vote. That's the only thing that is required from a law proposal. And to not break pre-existent laws or other regulations (the Constitution, international treaties, customs, etc.)