12 ms·
Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? For example: Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars pra
by MarkusWandel 2y ago
Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? For example:
Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse fuel economy.
or
Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.
As the article itself says: Hold big tech accountable -> Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be able to comply -> Big tech goes on, but indie tech forced offline.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoI don't think anyone believe that the "think of the children" argument leads to "unintended" consequences. They are thoroughly intended. It doesn't look like that, but policy makers do analyze potential impact and this is a problem you understand if you are more than 5 minutes into the topic. Although I do think they overlook that their legislation is restricted to their domestic market though, so any potential positive effect is more or less immediately negated. That is especially true for English speaking countries.
- pyrale 2y agoYour first example is a case of lawmakers not willing to finish the job moreso than of regulation being bad. That is like saying "when we write software there are bugs, so rather than fix them, we should never write software again". Your second example is ascribing to regulation something that goes way beyond regulation.
- dredmorbius 2y agoSociologist Robert K. Merton coined the term "unintended consequences" (amongst numerous others), and developed an existing notion of manifest vs. latent functions and dysfunctions. In particular, Merton notes: Discovery of latent functions represents significant increments in sociological knowledge .... It is precisely the latent functions of a practice or belief which are not common knowledge, for these are unintended and generally unrecognized social and psychological consequences. Robert K. Merton, "Manifest and Latent Functions", in Wesley Longhofer, Daniel Winchester (eds) Social Theory Re-Wired, Routledge (2016). <https://www.worldcat.org/title/social-theory-re-wired-new-connections-to-classical-and-contemporary-perspectives/oclc/1062283702 https://www.worldcat.org/title/social-theory-re-wired-new-co...> More on Merton: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton#Unanticipated_consequences_and_manifest_vs_latent_functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton#Unanticipated...> Unintended consequences: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences#Robert_K._Merton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences#Robert...> Manifest and latent functions: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_and_latent_functions_and_dysfunctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_and_latent_functions_...>
- nine_k 2y agoThere also is a very simple, uncontrived effect. You put pressure to a thing, the thing is quashed and ceased to exist. Many things in a society exist on thin margins, not only monetary, but also of attention, free time, care and interest, etc. You put a burden, such as a regulation, saying that people have to either comply or cease the activity, and people just cease it, like in the post. What used to be a piece of flourishing (or festering, depending on your POV) complexity gets reduced to a plain, compliant nothing. Maybe that was the plan all along.
- immibis 2y agoOppositional Defiance Disorder?
- constantcrying 2y agoThese can not be unintended consequences. Obviously the UK government is aware of what they are doing and are using whatever language they can.
- cynicalsecurity 2y agoModern fanatics don't care. They are eager to destroy everything for the sake of "protecting children".
- whatever1 2y agoLaws are meant to be dynamic. So you iterate on them as you get feedback from their implementation
- bryanlarsen 2y ago> Laws are meant to be dynamic. The US Supreme Court disagrees. https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2024/july/3/-/media/3e7428f19e624bf49a11a7a2f9483b0d.ashx https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2024/july/3/-/m...
- jtbayly 2y agoThe Supreme Court hasn’t and can’t say anything against laws being updated and changed. What they have prevented is those we have elected to make laws delegating that very authority to others.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoWhich in practice means that laws are not going to be updated and changed.
- jimnotgym 2y agoFor the time being the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the UK online safety act
- graemep 2y agoIt is also that big business can influence legislators, and small business cannot, so big business can influence regulation to their own advantage.
- FredPret 2y agoPoliticians should take a mandatory one-week training in: - very basic macro economics - very basic game theory - very basic statistics Come to think of it, kids should learn this in high school
- varispeed 2y agoYou are assuming they work for the good of the country, but in reality they work for big corporations. These regulations are designed to weed out small players that are a nuisance for the rich.
- atemerev 2y agoThis is why we have direct democracy here in Switzerland. Just skip the middlemen.
- AdrianB1 2y agoSo you are assuming politicians graduate high school? Not in my country.
- wat10000 2y agoI think you’re being overly charitable in thinking this happens because they don’t understand these things. The main thing is that they don’t care. The purpose of passing legislation to protect the children isn’t to protect the children, it’s to get reelected. If we can get the voters to understand the things you mention, then maybe we’d have a chance.
- mortarion 2y agoLawmakers also make and pass laws because it's their job, not because a new law is needed. They feel it's literally their job to come up with new bills to pass, for no reason other than "it's my job". Imagine a society so stable it doesn't need new laws or rules. All the elected representatives would just sit around all day and twiddle their thumbs. A bad look in their eyes. This is how it should be of course.
- 2y ago
- stego-tech 2y agoI mean, that’s what I call “rules lawyering” in game parlance. When someone utilizes the rules in such a way as to cause legal harm in service of their own interests, regardless of the intent of said rules in preventing harm. It’s why when a law/rule/standard has a carveout for its first edge case, it quickly becomes nothing but edge cases all the way down. And because language is ever-changing, rules lawyering is always possible - and governments must be ever-resistant to attempts to rules lawyer by bad actors. Modern regulations are sorely needed, but we’ve gone so long without meaningful reform that the powers that be have captured any potential regulation before it’s ever begun. I would think most common-sense reforms would say that these rules should be more specific in intent and targeting only those institutions clearing a specific revenue threshold or user count, but even that could be exploited by companies with vast legal teams creating new LLCs for every thin sliver of services offered to wiggle around such guardrails, or scriptkiddies creating millions of bot accounts with a zero-day to trigger compliance requirements. Regulation is a never-ending game. The only reason we “lost” is because our opponent convinced us that any regulation is bad. This law is awful and nakedly assaults indietech while protecting big tech, but we shouldn’t give up trying to untangle this mess and regulate it properly.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> I would think most common-sense reforms would say that these rules should be more specific in intent and targeting only those institutions clearing a specific revenue threshold or user count, but even that could be exploited by companies with vast legal teams creating new LLCs for every thin sliver of services offered to wiggle around such guardrails, or scriptkiddies creating millions of bot accounts with a zero-day to trigger compliance requirements. This is what judges are for. A human judge can understand that the threshold is intended to apply across the parent company when there is shared ownership, and that bot accounts aren't real users. You only have to go back and fix it if they get it wrong. > The only reason we “lost” is because our opponent convinced us that any regulation is bad. This law is awful and nakedly assaults indietech while protecting big tech, but we shouldn’t give up trying to untangle this mess and regulate it properly. The people who passed this law didn't do so by arguing that any regulation is bad. The reason you lost is that your regulators are captured by the incumbents, and when that's the case any regulation is bad, because any regulation that passes under that circumstance will be the one that benefits the incumbents.
- tracker1 2y ago"Gaming The Law"
- humodz 2y agoThere's the Cobra Effect popularized by Freakonomics Too many cobras > bounty for slain cobras > people start breeding them for the bounty > law is revoked > people release their cobras > even more cobras around
- dredmorbius 2y agoThe Freakonomics coverage was based on the book The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt by Michael G. Vann. He was recently interviewed about that book on the New Books Network: <https://newbooksnetwork.com/michael-g-vann-the-great-hanoi-rat-hunt-empire-disease-and-modernity-in-french-colonial-vietnam-oxford-up-2018/ https://newbooksnetwork.com/michael-g-vann-the-great-hanoi-r...> Audio: <https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LIT1560680456.mp3 https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LIT1560680456.mp3> (mp3) (Episode begins at 1:30.) Among the interesting revelations: the rat problem was concentrated in the French Quarter of Hanoi, as that's where the sewerage system was developed. What drained away filth also provided an express subway for rats. Which had been brought to Vietnam by steamship-powered trade, for what it's worth. (That's only a few minutes into the interview. The whole episode is great listening, and includes a few details on the Freakonomics experience.)
- dredmorbius 2y agoCorrection: Both the Freakonomics coverage and the book named above were based on an earlier paper, though both that and the book were by Vann.
- cortesoft 2y agoThe Cobra Effect is an example of a Perverse Incentive, which is where an attempt to incentivize a behavior ends up incentivizing the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive I think most of the examples fit this, but a few don't.
- smusamashah 2y agoThis also sounds similar to Goodhart's Law which states that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- pessimizer 2y ago> Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? These are not unintended consequences. All media legislation of late has been to eliminate all but the companies that are largest and closest to government. Clegg works at Facebook now, they'd all be happy to keep government offices on the premises to ensure compliance; they'd even pay for them. Western governments are encouraging monopolies in media (through legal pressure) in order to suppress speech through the voluntary cooperation of the companies who don't want to be destroyed. Those companies are not only threatened with the stick, but are given the carrots of becoming government contractors. There's a revolving door between their c-suites and government agencies. Their kids go to the same schools and sleep with each other.
- Rygian 2y agoIt's called "Perverse incentive" and Wikipedia runs an illustrative set of examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- stickfigure 2y agoThis one is marvelous: In 2021, the US Congress enacted stringent requirements to prevent sesame, a potential allergen, from cross-contaminating other foods. Many companies found it simpler and less expensive to instead add sesame directly to their product as an ingredient, exempting them from complying with the law.
- jimnotgym 2y ago>Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off. Not sure how keeping kids off the internet keeps them indoors? Surely the opposite is true?
- capitainenemo 2y agoNo mention in that example of internet. If I had to think of specifics, he's probably talking about the things that fall under the category of "free range kids" but also result in parents being criminally prosecuted.
- jimnotgym 2y agoThis is a discussion about the UK online safety act! That is about the internet isn't it?
- function_seven 2y agoThe other example in the parent comment was about fuel economy and trucks. They're just generalized laws about unintended consequences. I used to walk and ride my bike to school. I was in 4th grade. 9 years old. You show me a 9-year-old walking alone to school today, and I'll show you a parent who's getting investigated for child neglect. It's maddening. So that chain of consequences means today's kids are meant to be watched 24/7, and that usually means they're cooped up inside. They're still facing "Stranger Danger" (except through Snap or whatever games they're playing), and now they're also in poorer health.
- Eisenstein 2y agoNine is a bit young, but I lived down the street from a school and plenty of 10 - 12 year olds walked there by themselves.
- indrora 2y ago
- josephcsible 2y agoThere's a whole YouTube playlist about that sort of thing: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBuns9Evn1w9XhnH7vVh_7C65wJbaBECK https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBuns9Evn1w9XhnH7vVh_7C... I've heard it called "law of unintended consequences" and "cobra effect".
- bboygravity 2y agoThis is what Javier Milei means when he says that everything politicians touch turns to shit and therefor government should be minimal.
- danwills 2y agoWhile I agree with your general sentiment I think that there is a possible type of government where we are no-longer forced to vote for individual humans (or indeed groups of humans: political parties) but can instead vote on the actual ideas/policies. It might even be possible now to combine nuanced perspectives/responses to proposed policies from millions of people together!? I think it's not that unreasonable to suggest that kind of thing nowadays, I think there's precedent for it too even though stuff like how-wikipedia-works isn't really ideal, (even though it's somewhat an example of the main idea!). This way, the public servants (including politicians) can mainly just take care of making sure the ideas that the people vote-for get implemented! (like all the lower tiers of government currently do - just extend it to the top level too!) I don't think we should give individuals that power any more!
- NohatCoder 2y agoThe main problem is overwhelming voters, for a vote to be meaningful the voter has to understand the propositions that they vote for. Given the amount of legislation passed it is quite unreasonable to expect everyone to do the due diligence for every vote. What might make such a system work in practice is to only let a small randomly selected group of people vote for each issue. You still get a similar representation as a full vote, but with each person having much fewer votes to attend to it isn't overwhelming.
- mikedelfino 2y agoIsn’t that a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Many regulations serve to protect individuals and the environment, both of which might otherwise be overlooked in favor of corporate profits fighting in the free market. I'm afraid that when advocates of minimal government push their agenda, they often envision a level of reduction far beyond what most people would find acceptable. In situations like the one under discussion, I believe improving the regulation would be a better approach than eliminating it entirely.
- btown 2y ago> Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be able to comply When intentional, this is Regulatory Capture. Per https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp : > Regulation inherently tends to raise the cost of entry into a regulated market because new entrants have to bear not just the costs of entering the market but also of complying with the regulations. Oftentimes regulations explicitly impose barriers to entry, such as licenses, permits, and certificates of need, without which one may not legally operate in a market or industry. Incumbent firms may even receive legacy consideration by regulators, meaning that only new entrants are subject to certain regulations. A system with no regulation can be equally bad for consumers, though; there's a fine line between too little and too much regulation. The devil, as always, is in the details.
- hirako2000 2y agoI've always wondered why regulators don't bear all the costs induced by their regulations.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y agoHow would they pay the costs when they don't bear any of the profits from their regulated industries?
- Uvix 2y agoBut regulators do, through the taxes the industries pay on the profits.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y agoHow much money does that total (the taxes specifically earmarked for funding regulatory bodies)? If a company suddenly starts doing something that costs society more in externalities, does it suddenly start paying more taxes to deal with the enforcement required to get them to stop? After all, the whole point of regulation is to get the regulated to stop hurting society and costing it money.
- from-nibly 2y agoI don't think these consequences are unintended.
- m463 2y agoI recall some laws in the US (or california?) were based on the size of the company (in revenue $$) Too bad this isn't the case here.
- mortarion 2y agoIN the EU we have many of those and it's not a good thing.
- dspillett 2y agoEven when the fines or other punishments for non-compliance are relative to size/income/profit/etc, there are usually costs of compliance that do not similarly scale. Bigger companies can swallow them, independents can not, so regulatory capture can still be in effect.
- raincole 2y agoWhy are gas-guzzling trucks exempt from fuel standards? (Genuine question)
- igor47 2y agoGoogle "chicken tax". The chain of unintended consequences goes back even further
- Zak 2y agoThe original idea was that they needed big engines and bad aerodynamics to be able to perform their functions of hauling bulky loads and towing heavy trailers. Few people who didn't actually have those needs would want to drive one because they were unwieldy to drive and uncomfortable to be in relative to cars, so such an exemption surely wouldn't be widely exploited.
- aidenn0 2y agoBecause they were a large fraction of cars manufactured by US companies, so not excluding them would have put the entire US auto industry out of business.
- gilgoomesh 2y agoThey were supposedly commercial vehicles with real need for size and towing capacity. Because no one would fork over stupid amounts of money for a f*k off big truck if they didn't have a real need. Right?
- gdevenyi 2y agoBehold the failure to consider second order consequences when legislating rules.
- snakeyjake 2y ago>Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse fuel economy. tl;dr: This is a myth. There is no incentive to the consumer to purchase a vehicle with worse fuel economy. There USED to be an incentive, 30-40 years ago. It is not 1985 anymore. The gas guzzler tax covers a range of fuel economies from 12.5 to 22.5 mpg. It is practically impossible to design a car that gets less than 22.5 mpg. The Dodge Challenger SRT Demon 170, with an 6.2 L 8 cylinder engine making ONE THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE horsepower is officially rated for 13 mpg but that's bullshit, it's Dodge juicing the numbers just so buyers can say "I paid fifty-four hundred bucks gas guzzler tax BAYBEE" and in real-world usage the Demon 170 is getting 25 mpg. Other examples of cars that cannot achieve 22.5 mpg are the BMW M2/M3/M4/M8, the Cadillac CT5, high-performance sports sedans for which the gas guzzler tax is a <5% price increase. ($5400 is 5% of the Demon 170 price, but 2-3% of what dealers are actually charging for it.) The three most popular vehicles by sales volume in the United States are: 1. The Ford F-150, 2. The Chevy Silverado, and 3. The Dodge Ram 1500. The most popular engine configuration for these vehicles is the ~3L V6. Not a V8. A V6. Less than 1/4th of all pickup trucks are sold equipped with a V8. According to fueleconomy.gov every single Ford, Chevrolet, and Ram full-size pickup with a V6 would pay no gas guzzler tax. Most V8s would be close, perhaps an ECU flash away, to paying no gas guzzler tax. The only pickups that would qualify for a gas guzzler tax are the high-performance models-- single-digit percentages of the overall sales volume and at those prices the gas guzzler tax would not even factor into a buyer's decision. People buy trucks, SUVs, and compact SUVs because they want them and can afford them. Not because auto manufacturers phased out cars due to fuel economy standards. Not because consumers were "tricked" or "coerced". And certainly not because "the gubmint" messed things up. They buy them because they WANT them. The Toyota RAV4 is the 4th most popular car in the US. The Corolla is the 13th most popular. They are built on the same platform and dimensionally, the Corolla is actually very slightly larger except for height. They both come with the same general ballpark choices in engines. The gas guzzler tax only applies to the Corolla, but that doesn't matter because they both would be exempt. People don't freely choose the RAV4 over the Corolla because of fuel economy they buy it because the Corolla has 13 cubic feet of cargo capacity and the RAV4 has 70 cubic feet. And before anyone says that the gas guzzler tax made passenger cars more expensive, passenger cars can be purchased for the same price adjusted for inflation they could be 50 years ago, but people don't want a Mitsubishi Mirage, which is the same price as a vintage VW Beetle (perennial cheapest new car from the 1960s) and better in every quantifiable metric, they want an SUV. What may be true is that there is a national policy to keep fuel prices as low as possible, for a myriad of reasons, with one side effect of that policy being that it has enabled people to buy larger less fuel-efficient cars. I do not believe it is auto manufacturers who are pushing for this policy. I believe it is the freight and logistic market. The auto market is valued at $4 billion, the freight and logistics market is $1,300 billion. GM and Ford are insignificant specks compared to the diesel and gasoline consumers of the freight and logistics firms (who have several powerful lobbies). https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/08/v8-market-share-just-quarter-ford-f150-lineup/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/08/v8-market-share-ju... https://www.fueleconomy.gov https://www.fueleconomy.gov https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6197.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6197.pdf (gas guzzler worksheet)
- PKop 2y agoWhy do people foolishly claim these are unintended consequences? This is a way to regulate political speech and create a weapon to silence free speech online. It's what opponents to these measures have been saying forever. Why do we have to pretend those enacting them didn't listen, are naive, or are innocent well intentioned actors? They know what this is and what it does. The purpose of a system is what it does. Related to this, and one version of a label for this type of silencing particularly as potentially weaponized by arbitrary people not just politicians is Heckler's veto. Just stir up a storm and cite this convenient regulation to shut down a site you don't like. It's useful to those enacting these laws that they don't even themselves have to point the finger, disgruntled users or whoever will do it for them.
- ctw 2y agoThe concept of Rule Beating from Systems Thinking seems apt. You have some goal so you introduce a rule, but if you choose a bad rule, it ends up making things worse. The solution is to recognize that it was a bad rule, repeal it, and find a better one.