3 ms·

They may seem obvious to you, but to a lot of us, it's not obvious at all. Vague notions of "damage" could refer to anything, like harming competition. Differen

They may seem obvious to you, but to a lot of us, it's not obvious at all. Vague notions of "damage" could refer to anything, like harming competition. Different value systems and all that.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
Well, the original post was "Stop me if you can." Basically, if there's no rule saying I can't do it, then I should do it, until rules are developed to stop it; regardless of the morality or danger. I suspect that one way to make people more careful, is to make future rules and regulations retroactive. For example, if I had developed a fintech product that was a legal ponzi scheme, or a downloader that is a legal way of accessing copyrighted material, because of loopholes, and those loopholes are closed, after the fact (happens all the time), then, if the new remedies can be applied to the "legal" implementations that were in effect before the closing of the loopholes, I suspect that it would make the "loopholer" a wee bit more cautious. But that won't happen. There's way too many ways that it could go off the rails. So people will keep on bending, folding, spindling, and mutilating, until they are stopped by a steel door, slamming down in front of them. I strongly suspect that a lot of companies are set up to harvest as much as possible, before the door slams, so they can reap the benefits.
- chii 3y ago
  > if the new remedies can be applied to the "legal" implementations that were in effect before the closing of the loopholes, I suspect that it would make the "loopholer" a wee bit more cautious. and there's moral implications about applying new rules retroactively. What you do today that is completely legal, should not be punished tomorrow even if it was decided in the future that it is illegal. Otherwise, there would be a chilling effect on innovation.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Exactly. I could see a government, in need of tax revenue, enacting a law that taxes some activity, then going after people that have been doing it for years. Suddenly, we owe ten years of back taxes, with penalties. It’s not feasible to do this. But there are plenty if people –many on this very forum, I suspect– that know what they are doing is highly immoral, and will likely get shut down, but … MONEY … so they do it for as long as they can gt away with it.

They may seem obvious to you, but to a lot of us, it's not obvious at all. Vague notions of "damage" could refer to anything, like harming competition. Different value systems and all that.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

Well, the original post was "Stop me if you can." Basically, if there's no rule saying I can't do it, then I should do it, until rules are developed to stop it; regardless of the morality or danger. I suspect that one way to make people more careful, is to make future rules and regulations retroactive. For example, if I had developed a fintech product that was a legal ponzi scheme, or a downloader that is a legal way of accessing copyrighted material, because of loopholes, and those loopholes are closed, after the fact (happens all the time), then, if the new remedies can be applied to the "legal" implementations that were in effect before the closing of the loopholes, I suspect that it would make the "loopholer" a wee bit more cautious. But that won't happen. There's way too many ways that it could go off the rails. So people will keep on bending, folding, spindling, and mutilating, until they are stopped by a steel door, slamming down in front of them. I strongly suspect that a lot of companies are set up to harvest as much as possible, before the door slams, so they can reap the benefits.

chii 3y ago
> if the new remedies can be applied to the "legal" implementations that were in effect before the closing of the loopholes, I suspect that it would make the "loopholer" a wee bit more cautious. and there's moral implications about applying new rules retroactively. What you do today that is completely legal, should not be punished tomorrow even if it was decided in the future that it is illegal. Otherwise, there would be a chilling effect on innovation.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Exactly. I could see a government, in need of tax revenue, enacting a law that taxes some activity, then going after people that have been doing it for years. Suddenly, we owe ten years of back taxes, with penalties. It’s not feasible to do this. But there are plenty if people –many on this very forum, I suspect– that know what they are doing is highly immoral, and will likely get shut down, but … MONEY … so they do it for as long as they can gt away with it.