3 ms·

I think laws/regulations are very similar. "Obvious" ones are good (e.g. violence, food safety), analogous to "of course they should block actually inappropriat

I think laws/regulations are very similar. "Obvious" ones are good (e.g. violence, food safety), analogous to "of course they should block actually inappropriate content". But you can't force people and companies to behave via laws and regulations, and fine-grained laws and regulations don't work, because of loopholes. To get a healthy society, you must teach people how to behave, then (again, still explicitly prevent serious crimes, but otherwise) trust them. Some will take advantage of the system, but they may still face natural and social consequences, and some abuse of the system is OK.

Forgeties79 1y ago
> But you can't force people and companies to behave via laws and regulations I guess I’m not really following where this logic is going. Are you saying “therefore we should not have laws and regulations”? I highly doubt that’s what you actually mean, but I am unsure how to parse what you do mean if not that.
- armchairhacker 1y ago
  We should have laws and regulations for things that are important and (relatively) easy to define and enforce. But laws and regulations aren't enough, because people find loopholes, and trying to patch these loopholes with more laws and regulations doesn't work. Examples of "obvious" laws and regulations: physical violence should be policed, companies should have to pay salaries and have basic restrictions on work hours, safety, sanitation, etc. Examples of things that can't really be regulated: "gambling" and "harmful social media". When does a game become "gambling"? When does a site become "social media" and "harmful"? Various countries have legal definitions for these, but they're very long, so companies find loopholes (e.g. sports betting, loot-boxes); or they straight-up break the laws, but the government doesn't bother to enforce them, because it's too difficult and the general population doesn't notice or care enough. Complex and ineffective laws and regulations also tend to have unintended consequences, like Balatro being considered "gambling" in Australia, and the UK's "Online Safety Act" affecting small forums. Part of the reason is that the people writing and enforcing laws and regulations themselves are corrupt. But this goes back to the source: you can't police those people with more laws, because their enforcers are also corrupt, and so on. A society is controlled and its morality is defined by its people, so to some extent, a society must teach its people to be moral and give them the leeway to still behave immoral.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    I’m having trouble squaring this with something like DUI laws. Some people still drive drunk despite having them, but I think we all largely agree that the existence of these laws and their enforcement leads to fewer instances of drunk driving and is overall good for society. That being said maybe I’m still not quite grasping the thrust of your point, but it sounds to me like you’re saying “corrupt/bad people ignore laws so laws meant to stop them are pointless.” Is that an accurate summary?
    - armchairhacker 1y ago
      DUI laws are examples of OK laws: uncontroversial, concrete (BAC above X level), and easy to enforce. I specifically say that laws in that category are OK. Bad laws are: - Controversial. For example, prohibition. Such laws also tend to be hard-to-enforce and “immoral”, but even with effective enforcement and moral justification, they’re bad because they decrease societal QOL and cooperation. - Vague. For example, a law that allows a cop to search your vehicle if they “smell drugs”. Since in theory cops aren’t allowed to arbitrarily search people’s vehicles, and this seems to be something most people believe; except “smell drugs” is entirely subjective, so bad cops use it as an excuse to arbitrarily search people’s vehicles anyways. Likewise, it may not be common, but a cop can choose to ignore a vehicle that obviously contains drugs, by claiming they can’t smell anything. If there was a specific criteria like “X ratio of drug particles in the air…well, technically cops aren’t required to enforce laws, but at least it would be easier for bystanders to prove they deliberately weren’t enforcing that one (vs the current law, the cop can argue and may actually have a weak sense of smell). - Hard to enforce. Specifically when the cost of enforcement surpasses the benefit from the law existing (by definition). These are the laws that are most affected by loopholes. - People purposefully ignore loopholes to controversial laws that break said laws in spirit, if not outright (“loopholes” not in a law’s text but in its enforcement). - Judges side towards innocence, so borderline (in theory) violations of vague laws are (in practice) effectively allowed. Even non-borderline violations require more evidence to convict. Also, while all laws are selectively enforced, vague laws tend to be moreso, because proving selective enforcement is itself proving something vague. “Borderline violations” are loopholes, “selective enforcement” is sometimes loopholes (the loopholes are the parts that aren’t enforced). - Laws that are already hard to enforce, enforcers don’t have the effort or ability to target loopholes. Some laws are hard to enforce mainly if not entirely because of certain loopholes. Also, my argument (and analogy to the article) isn’t just that some laws are bad, but that laws aren’t enough to prevent crime. Because some crimes are accepted by large parts of society, some can only be defined vaguely, and some are impossible to enforce (without severe downsides, like an authoritarian police state, if not literally impossible). Another way to mitigate crime is through norms; teaching people not to do things, by explaining why and/or just telling them, without formal enforcement. That’s analogous to convincing students not to play video games in class by their own volition, instead of only blocking video games, because not all “games” can be blocked. That corrupt/bad people ignore laws doesn’t make every law pointless, but it means the rule of law isn’t enough to stop corrupt/bad people. And good-intentioned people who rely on the rule of law too much create laws which, still aren’t all pointless, but cause more harm than good.

Forgeties79 1y ago

> But you can't force people and companies to behave via laws and regulations I guess I’m not really following where this logic is going. Are you saying “therefore we should not have laws and regulations”? I highly doubt that’s what you actually mean, but I am unsure how to parse what you do mean if not that.

armchairhacker 1y ago
We should have laws and regulations for things that are important and (relatively) easy to define and enforce. But laws and regulations aren't enough, because people find loopholes, and trying to patch these loopholes with more laws and regulations doesn't work. Examples of "obvious" laws and regulations: physical violence should be policed, companies should have to pay salaries and have basic restrictions on work hours, safety, sanitation, etc. Examples of things that can't really be regulated: "gambling" and "harmful social media". When does a game become "gambling"? When does a site become "social media" and "harmful"? Various countries have legal definitions for these, but they're very long, so companies find loopholes (e.g. sports betting, loot-boxes); or they straight-up break the laws, but the government doesn't bother to enforce them, because it's too difficult and the general population doesn't notice or care enough. Complex and ineffective laws and regulations also tend to have unintended consequences, like Balatro being considered "gambling" in Australia, and the UK's "Online Safety Act" affecting small forums. Part of the reason is that the people writing and enforcing laws and regulations themselves are corrupt. But this goes back to the source: you can't police those people with more laws, because their enforcers are also corrupt, and so on. A society is controlled and its morality is defined by its people, so to some extent, a society must teach its people to be moral and give them the leeway to still behave immoral.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  I’m having trouble squaring this with something like DUI laws. Some people still drive drunk despite having them, but I think we all largely agree that the existence of these laws and their enforcement leads to fewer instances of drunk driving and is overall good for society. That being said maybe I’m still not quite grasping the thrust of your point, but it sounds to me like you’re saying “corrupt/bad people ignore laws so laws meant to stop them are pointless.” Is that an accurate summary?
  - armchairhacker 1y ago
    DUI laws are examples of OK laws: uncontroversial, concrete (BAC above X level), and easy to enforce. I specifically say that laws in that category are OK. Bad laws are: - Controversial. For example, prohibition. Such laws also tend to be hard-to-enforce and “immoral”, but even with effective enforcement and moral justification, they’re bad because they decrease societal QOL and cooperation. - Vague. For example, a law that allows a cop to search your vehicle if they “smell drugs”. Since in theory cops aren’t allowed to arbitrarily search people’s vehicles, and this seems to be something most people believe; except “smell drugs” is entirely subjective, so bad cops use it as an excuse to arbitrarily search people’s vehicles anyways. Likewise, it may not be common, but a cop can choose to ignore a vehicle that obviously contains drugs, by claiming they can’t smell anything. If there was a specific criteria like “X ratio of drug particles in the air…well, technically cops aren’t required to enforce laws, but at least it would be easier for bystanders to prove they deliberately weren’t enforcing that one (vs the current law, the cop can argue and may actually have a weak sense of smell). - Hard to enforce. Specifically when the cost of enforcement surpasses the benefit from the law existing (by definition). These are the laws that are most affected by loopholes. - People purposefully ignore loopholes to controversial laws that break said laws in spirit, if not outright (“loopholes” not in a law’s text but in its enforcement). - Judges side towards innocence, so borderline (in theory) violations of vague laws are (in practice) effectively allowed. Even non-borderline violations require more evidence to convict. Also, while all laws are selectively enforced, vague laws tend to be moreso, because proving selective enforcement is itself proving something vague. “Borderline violations” are loopholes, “selective enforcement” is sometimes loopholes (the loopholes are the parts that aren’t enforced). - Laws that are already hard to enforce, enforcers don’t have the effort or ability to target loopholes. Some laws are hard to enforce mainly if not entirely because of certain loopholes. Also, my argument (and analogy to the article) isn’t just that some laws are bad, but that laws aren’t enough to prevent crime. Because some crimes are accepted by large parts of society, some can only be defined vaguely, and some are impossible to enforce (without severe downsides, like an authoritarian police state, if not literally impossible). Another way to mitigate crime is through norms; teaching people not to do things, by explaining why and/or just telling them, without formal enforcement. That’s analogous to convincing students not to play video games in class by their own volition, instead of only blocking video games, because not all “games” can be blocked. That corrupt/bad people ignore laws doesn’t make every law pointless, but it means the rule of law isn’t enough to stop corrupt/bad people. And good-intentioned people who rely on the rule of law too much create laws which, still aren’t all pointless, but cause more harm than good.