3 ms·

> The need to have a for profit platform leads to perverse incentives. Only because, despite their immense importance, those platforms are essentially unregula

by p-e-w 3y ago

> The need to have a for profit platform leads to perverse incentives. Only because, despite their immense importance, those platforms are essentially unregulated. Imagine water suppliers were unregulated. There would also be "perverse incentives", such as doctors paying them to add poison to the water so they get more patients and can make more money. But nothing like that ever happens, because there are rules such companies must abide by. Therefore, they simply sell water for money, and that's it. There are no incentives to extract more profits through other means, because anything else is prohibited. I fail to see why analogous regulation wouldn't work for online communication platforms.

yarg 3y ago
Locality is one issue, and the fact that it's significantly less vital means that it's generally not a matter of life and death. As far as doctors bribing water suppliers to get more customers, the law is seldom enough to discourage bad behaviour when you're expecting not to get caught or the fines are too low for criminality to be profitable.
moffkalast 3y ago
> There would also be "perverse incentives", such as doctors paying them to add poison to the water so they get more patients and can make more money. This is why anything recommended by a for-profit dentist is the opposite of what you should probably buy.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
I find it weird that you think “regulation” is needed to stop people from committing crimes. That’s already illegal! Anyway your example is silly because no one would buy water from a producer that poisons it. The potential profit to doctors is low as well. At least you could have chosen something more realistic. Water being regulated is probably the biggest cause of shortages in the US West. Prices are set too low (especially for certain buyers) and it causes overconsumption. It’s a classic tragedy of the commons that public management has failed to resolve.

by p-e-w 3y ago

yarg 3y ago

Locality is one issue, and the fact that it's significantly less vital means that it's generally not a matter of life and death. As far as doctors bribing water suppliers to get more customers, the law is seldom enough to discourage bad behaviour when you're expecting not to get caught or the fines are too low for criminality to be profitable.

moffkalast 3y ago

> There would also be "perverse incentives", such as doctors paying them to add poison to the water so they get more patients and can make more money. This is why anything recommended by a for-profit dentist is the opposite of what you should probably buy.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

I find it weird that you think “regulation” is needed to stop people from committing crimes. That’s already illegal! Anyway your example is silly because no one would buy water from a producer that poisons it. The potential profit to doctors is low as well. At least you could have chosen something more realistic. Water being regulated is probably the biggest cause of shortages in the US West. Prices are set too low (especially for certain buyers) and it causes overconsumption. It’s a classic tragedy of the commons that public management has failed to resolve.