4 ms·
> 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.c
by 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.
- greentxt 2y agoRegulations aren't all designed for society's well being. Some regulations are very narrow and help only specific businesses, like tarrifs.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y agoRegulations aren't all designed to help specific businesses. Some regulations are designed for society's well-being.
- hirako2000 2y agoThen society should gladly finance their entire cost.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 2y agoThe cost addressed by regulation is the cost on society of the unregulated behavior. An alternative might be, no regulation, but businesses are responsible for the costs of business to society (pollution, poor mental health, potential that it's a scam). After all, businesses benefit from these things, so they should gladly cover their cost to society. Personally, I prefer less pollution.
- bigfatkitten 2y agoSome regulations are designed to satisfy ideological whims of the legislature, and they don't benefit society at all.
- CraigJPerry 2y agoNo they don’t. Every dollar the government spends is a brand new dollar. You can’t save up money in a currency that you issue. As a fiat currency issuer, you have two options, you can create money for circulation (government spending) or you can destroy money and it’ll never circulate again (taxation).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chairmansteve 2y agoMaybe one way to do it is to exempt smaller operations from regulation. eg less than say 20,000 users, no regulations.
- Earw0rm 2y agoThis is eminently sensible, should happen everywhere. It almost always doesn't, because the big guys have lobbyists and the small guys don't. The big guys would rather not have to comply with these rules, but typically their take is, well, if we're going to have to anyway, let's at least make it an opportunity to drive out some of the scrappy competition and claim the whole pie for ourselves.
- pyrale 2y agoLead poisoning is not less dangerous when your house is built by a small builder.
- Earw0rm 2y agoTrue. But the small outfits tend to get their supplies from big ones, lead is something that can probably be dealt with at supply-chain level.
- Zak 2y agoIt is not, however calls for racist violence are less dangerous when they're posted on a niche forum with 20 daily active users than when they're posted on Twitter.
- michaelt 2y agoThe UK had a rule that gave small employers a £4,000 discount on national insurance. Sketchy large employers like G4S responded by setting up tens of thousands of "Mini umbrella companies" [1] with directors in the Philippines, each company employing only a handful of people - allowing G4S to benefit from the £4,000 discount tens of thousands of times. Sadly, exempting small operations from regulation isn't a simple matter. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128