4 ms·
Well, it never has in the entire history of humanity, but sure, whatever.
by PixyMisa 3y ago
Well, it never has in the entire history of humanity, but sure, whatever.
- lijok 3y agoSo compliance officers don't exist, or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoTwo-person startups don't have a full-time compliance officer, so who do these economies of scale benefit?
- lijok 3y agoThat's interesting. Every startup I've ever worked at, the chief compliance officer & mlro was one of the first 2-3 employees to get hired (as far as I can recall).
- cinntaile 3y agoWouldn't it be better if they could instead hire someone that adds actual value as one of their early employees rather than someone they need to fulfill some bureaucratic requirement?
- lijok 3y agoBetter for whom?
- cinntaile 3y agoBoth for society and the company. You want more small companies to succeed in your society, they are the engine of growth after all. One way to help out is by reducing their bureaucratic burden. This is all well researched and well documented.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoCustomers who want resources spent on product improvements, or lower prices, rather than deadweight economic losses to regulatory overhead.
- lijok 3y agoHow would those same customers feel when the resources are spent on scamming them instead? That's why we have regulation in the first place
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago"Resources spent on scamming them instead" would be something like locking the customer out of doing their own firmware updates or refusing to publish documentation or source code in their possession for out-of-support products because it enables planned obsolescence. But regulations prohibiting such practices wouldn't see many objections from open source developers because they would be trivially satisfied by publishing the source code under widely used existing licenses. Whereas providing you with every ability to do something yourself, or to pay any third party to do it for you, is not a scam just because they're not offering to do it for you without pay.
- lijok 3y ago> "Resources spent on scamming them instead" would be something like locking the customer out of doing their own firmware updates or refusing to publish documentation or source code in their possession for out-of-support products because it enables planned obsolescence. But regulations prohibiting such practices wouldn't see many objections from open source developers because they would be trivially satisfied by publishing the source code under widely used existing licenses. That's definitely a problem which should be fixed and is indeed currently being fixed by the EU via regulation.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoDon't fall into the trap where "regulation" is treated as a monolithic thing which is either good or bad as a whole. It's the most motte and bailey thing in the world. Anyone can justify the government in prohibiting leaded gasoline, that doesn't tell you whether any unrelated proposal is any good. Many, many of them legitimately are not.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> That's interesting. Every startup I've ever worked at, the chief compliance officer & mlro was one of the first 2-3 employees to get hired (as far as I can recall). One of the employees is assigned the role in a jurisdiction where someone has to be assigned the role, because obviously. That doesn't mean it's their full time job -- how could it be, unless the compliance overhead has fully doubled the company's labor costs? All it is for them is more work, which only allows them to specialize less in each of the other things they have to do.
- lijok 3y agoNope - actual full time compliance officers. First thing those companies did was apply for regulatory permission.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoSo the compliance burden actually did fully double their labor costs, that seems bad?
- lijok 3y agoBad for whom?
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoCustomers who don't want to pay high prices to abusive oligopolists, workers who could have gotten paid more or been able to work fewer hours for the same salary, taxpayers who would have received the tax on business profits instead spent on compliance costs.
- carapace 3y ago"compliance" here means working software, right? We have building codes and building inspectors and fewer buildings fall down that way.