5 ms·

If your "innovation" is at risk from consumer protection regulations I question whether it's a good innovation.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
earthnail 2y ago
There are many examples of successful companies that fall into that category. Sometimes an innovation needs critical mass to work - social networks for example. LinkedIn famously got big by being extremely aggressive on how they mined your contacts. You'd get sued to the moon and back in the EU for this behaviour. LinkedIn is big now, it has established itself and no longer needs to be that aggressive. Any European player that tried to enter the market with a less aggressive stance had no chance - they never reached that critical mass.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  And we are all so grateful that LinkedIn's aggressive innovation was allowed to flourish.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Bayer would have never invented heroin, if there had not been a market for that and there is a market for that because its a great product. The greatest actually, surpassing all other products, including human society and its the purest form of capitalism. All other products and businesses are just pre-cursors for this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
whoitwas 2y ago
No. Regulations are required so companies produce value rather than exploits. There's no stopping the exploits, especially in an environment where $$$ === speech, but regulation is required for companies to produce value for customers.
whoitwas 2y ago
A good example is the US "health care" system. It's a meat grinder that exploits everyone and sort of pretends to do what it's supposed to through regulation.
valval 2y ago
Since the people making the innovations and regulations are different, I fear there’s no way to implement regulation that doesn’t lead to suboptimal results. And to be clear, when I say suboptimal results I mean misery and death in large quantities.
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  Yes, but the innovators' incentives don't always align with the needs of the people the regulations should protect. Regulation are a necessary balance, otherwise the innovators become so powerful they eventually concentrate all the power and privilege and make weaker people pay for it. Chlorofluorocarbons were an innovation for some times, then we needed regulation to save our ozone layer. Industrial wouldn't have stopped using it. It's a fine line, constantly moving, an nobody will never be perfectly happy about it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

There are many examples of successful companies that fall into that category. Sometimes an innovation needs critical mass to work - social networks for example. LinkedIn famously got big by being extremely aggressive on how they mined your contacts. You'd get sued to the moon and back in the EU for this behaviour. LinkedIn is big now, it has established itself and no longer needs to be that aggressive. Any European player that tried to enter the market with a less aggressive stance had no chance - they never reached that critical mass.

Vegenoid 2y ago
And we are all so grateful that LinkedIn's aggressive innovation was allowed to flourish.
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Bayer would have never invented heroin, if there had not been a market for that and there is a market for that because its a great product. The greatest actually, surpassing all other products, including human society and its the purest form of capitalism. All other products and businesses are just pre-cursors for this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

whoitwas 2y ago

No. Regulations are required so companies produce value rather than exploits. There's no stopping the exploits, especially in an environment where $$$ === speech, but regulation is required for companies to produce value for customers.

whoitwas 2y ago

A good example is the US "health care" system. It's a meat grinder that exploits everyone and sort of pretends to do what it's supposed to through regulation.

valval 2y ago

Since the people making the innovations and regulations are different, I fear there’s no way to implement regulation that doesn’t lead to suboptimal results. And to be clear, when I say suboptimal results I mean misery and death in large quantities.

BiteCode_dev 2y ago
Yes, but the innovators' incentives don't always align with the needs of the people the regulations should protect. Regulation are a necessary balance, otherwise the innovators become so powerful they eventually concentrate all the power and privilege and make weaker people pay for it. Chlorofluorocarbons were an innovation for some times, then we needed regulation to save our ozone layer. Industrial wouldn't have stopped using it. It's a fine line, constantly moving, an nobody will never be perfectly happy about it.