4 ms·

I don't think "hackernews is pro-regulation" is accurate, but that might be an easy mistake if you are "anti-regulation". I'm neither thing. I like regulation t

I don't think "hackernews is pro-regulation" is accurate, but that might be an easy mistake if you are "anti-regulation". I'm neither thing. I like regulation that works well and dislike it if it doesn't, which I dare say is the rational POV. I'm going to repost my comment from a thread on a recent story flagged as dupe: It's not the amount of regulation that matters, it's the intent. Is it written to benefit a greater good, or written to benefit a political party's benefactor? The same applies to removing regulations. Where did the intent lie? New regulation and repeal are most often shades of grey --bad mixed with good in terms of overall consequences. Many changes disproportionately help a few at some expense to the many. That's what happens when minority interests with a lot of money are overrepresented in government, lobbyists write bills, etc.

cbb330 3y ago
My conclusion on hackernews being "pro-regulation" is based on observance that posts discussing the downside of regulation are often downvoted. I agree with what you said. Knowing that repealing regulation is much less frequent than producing new regulation -- we should assume all new regulation is high risk, since its' impact is known to have tradeoffs, is to some degree created from perverse incentives and minority interests, and once in place is immutable. Regulation can be good and it can be bad. So if we know that regulation carries high risk, we need to be very apprehensive to anyone calling for more regulation such as this article via "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/". We don't know who they are, what they want, and what their suggested change in policy affects in net to humanity over time. I guess what I want is for companies like "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/" to be held to a higher bar and be more responsible for the outcome of their research and conclusions.

cbb330 3y ago

My conclusion on hackernews being "pro-regulation" is based on observance that posts discussing the downside of regulation are often downvoted. I agree with what you said. Knowing that repealing regulation is much less frequent than producing new regulation -- we should assume all new regulation is high risk, since its' impact is known to have tradeoffs, is to some degree created from perverse incentives and minority interests, and once in place is immutable. Regulation can be good and it can be bad. So if we know that regulation carries high risk, we need to be very apprehensive to anyone calling for more regulation such as this article via "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/". We don't know who they are, what they want, and what their suggested change in policy affects in net to humanity over time. I guess what I want is for companies like "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/" to be held to a higher bar and be more responsible for the outcome of their research and conclusions.