4 ms·
Try banning practices like this and you'll end up with over-general regulations that ban a lot of things that should be legal. When the government find itself w
by rquantz 14y ago
Try banning practices like this and you'll end up with over-general regulations that ban a lot of things that should be legal. When the government find itself with overly broad statutes, it frequently ends up applying them selectively, based on whatever criteria it chooses. This often ends up being based on things like race, or whether you're engaging in speech the government doesn't like, or whether you're engaged in activities that a politician's donors don't like (something a lot of startups like to do).
Even if you can define the problem precisely so it is not too broad, in order to prevent arbitrary enforcement you would have to place a huge regulatory burden on either a government agency or website owners (or both). Every website that sells anything would have to register with the government(s) of whatever jurisdictions apply, and file reports showing that they are meeting the requirements. Then you run into problems regarding who is responsible for user generated content -- it goes on and on.
For some particularly egregious types of fraud, these downsides can be worth it, but you have to be careful what you choose to regulate.
- lunarscape 14y ago>Every website that sells anything would have to register with the government(s) of whatever jurisdictions apply, and file reports showing that they are meeting the requirements I think the scenario you paint is completely unrealistic. Most consumer protection laws are not enforced like this. It's not FCC or CE marking we're talking about. Usually it's a case that when consumers complain (e.g. product not as described) the seller is investigated and, if found guilty, fined or punished as per the law. The rest of your argument, which I realise is for arguments sake, reads like a slippery slope argument because you provide no real examples.
- dexen 14y ago> Most consumer protection laws are not enforced like this. It's not about actual enforcement, it's about perceived risks. Take for example recent legislation regarding HTTP cookies in EU -- it has stirred up quite a bit of FUD, slowing down use of this handy utility for decent purposes. Not because of some widespread persecution, but exactly because Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on behalf of the good-willed netizens. Meanwhile, the proverbial Bad Guys do not care anyway.