8 ms·

I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated

I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated and how. Some areas need more regulations, some areas need less. Some areas need altered regulation. Some areas have just the right regulations. Most regulations can be improved, some more than others.

l5870uoo9y 1y ago
I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course, Draghi's report has led to nothing more than a few headlines.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  That 50% figure seems extremely dubious. I'd expect either methodological failures, or a definition of "costs" that I disagree with (e.g. fair-competition regulations preventing price-hikes, "costing" EU companies the profit they could obtain from a cartel). However, skimming the report (https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...), I can't find the 50% figure.
  - l5870uoo9y 1y ago
    > Mario Draghi has argued that the EU's internal barriers, which are equivalent to a high tariff rate, cost more than external tariffs. He has cited IMF estimates that show these internal barriers are equivalent to a \(45\%\) tariff on manufactured goods and a \(110\%\) tariff on services. These internal market restrictions, which include regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy, hinder cross-border competition and have a significant negative impact on the EU's economy. Source: https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-...
    - palata 1y ago
      Sure, someone argues something. Who knows if it's right or wrong? It's not a hard science. How do you estimate the cost of regulations on businesses? You ask businesses. Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. "Just in case", they will say it hurts them. That is, until there is a de facto monopoly and they can't compete anymore, and at that point they start lobbying like crazy for... more regulations. Look at the drone industry: a chinese company, DJI, is light-years ahead of everybody else. What have US drone companies been doing in the last 5+ years? Begging for regulations. All that to say, it is pretty clear that no regulations is bad, and infinitely many regulations is bad. Now what's extremely difficult is to know what amount of regulation is good. And even that is simplistic: it's not about an amount of regulation, it depends on each one. The cookie hell is not a problem of regulations, it's a problem of businesses being arseholes. They know it sucks, they know they don't do anything with those cookies, but they still decide that their website will start with a goddamn cookie popup because... well because the sum of all those good humans working in those businesses results in businesses that are, themselves, big arseholes.
      - mr_toad 1y ago
        The number of regulations is not as important as the quality of those regulations. Shame we can’t regulate the quality of regulations.
        KPGv2 1y ago
        The US actually has done this very thing since Reagan: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(Ronald_Reagan,_1981) https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(... That's an executive order (regulation) requiring proposed regulations undergo a cost-benefit analysis before being promulgated. It's why we got mandated backup cameras in cars: the cost-benefit analysis revealed the cost to have these in every new car was dwarfed by the cost in human lives of all the kids who were being run over in driveways bc they weren't visible behind cars.
        1y ago
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    I agree if we look at what has happened to the EU over the last 2 decades the costs have to be much higher. 50% seems optimistic at best for how far behind the EU has gotten.
    - 8note 1y ago
      should you filter out the covid era from that? coats have gotten higher, but across the board for different countries
  - mnau 1y ago
    Seems pretty real. E.g. CRA official impact assessment estimates one-time (in addition to ongoing costs) compliance cost at €500K per one product. That is enough for 10 man years per product. And that is just one of many new regulations.
- gessha 1y ago
  I’m not saying the following regarding Draghi’s report or particular regulation in mind: If an unethical business gets started due to underregulation and it generates revenue and contributes to GDP, is that a good thing?
  - Ferret7446 1y ago
    If the net social cost is less than the cost from overregulation, yes
    - gbanfalvi 1y ago
      Lmao you can’t be serious. This is something that can only be said if you can’t/won’t quantify social cost. Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Repealing Glass—Steagall led to a global financial crisis. Gig economy businesses are exploiting workers by the thousands through self employment loopholes. We have insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry. Worst of all is that we’ve likely doomed the entire planet based on what is effectively too little environmental regulation.
      - jack_tripper 1y ago
        >Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Yes, but gambling and all vices for that matter, are a centuries old issue that's well studied and well understood by everyone, while AI(hate that term in this case) LLMs are only an issue since November 2022, while most influential politicians are dumbass boomers who don't understand how a PC or the internet works let alone how LLMs work but yet are expected to make critical decisions on these topics. So then it's safe to assume that the politicians will either fudge up the regulations due to sheer cluelessness, or they will just make decisions based on what their most influential corporate lobbyists will tell them. Either way it's bad.
        troupo 11mo ago
        ML and other automated systems are not new, and we know enough about automated systems to come up with regulations like "no, you should not use these in a certain set of specific circumstances" or "if you're unleashing this onto the world, you have to show that you understand what you're doing" etc.
- jlarocco 1y ago
  The logical extreme there is legalizing murder for hire, human trafficking, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. Privacy is in a different category altogether, but there's more to think about than just how much things cost companies.
  - Ferret7446 1y ago
    That's a straight up slippery slope logical fallacy.
    - matthewdgreen 11mo ago
      We’ve had “legitimate” for-profit firms supplying authoritarian governments with phone malware that they allegedly used to spy on and sometimes murder their dissidents. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy, we’ve seen what happens if it isn’t guarded.
    - jlarocco 11mo ago
      That's technically true, but I was using it to prove my point that there's more to think about than company profits. Maybe I should have used dumping waste in a river and paying workers below minimum wage as examples. Profits could go up, but most people would agree it should still be illegal.
- ikiris 1y ago
  Ok let’s take this at face value. Not being able to use child labor is a 40%+ tariff. What have we gained by framing it as such other than an extremely biased take pro unregulated business?
  - nickpp 1y ago
    Such unhinged takes are one of the reasons EU has fallen behind so much. Nobody is arguing for child labor. We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Yeah, regulation generally tries to do good but that is going to be little consolation when EU's economy will go broke because all products and services we consume are build in less-regulated territories (USA and China to be specific).
    - troupo 11mo ago
      > We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Oh no. How are you going to build your new ChatGPT wrapper without selling user data to thousands of "privacy-preserving partners"? GDPR (and a very small number of other applicable regulations) are somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. And unless you are a complete moron those regulations will maybe apply to you when you reach 10 million+ users.
      - nickpp 11mo ago
        > GDPR [...] somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. No. GDPR was presented as a company ending regulation. You make a mistake - you are doomed. The fines are in revenue percentages. User data was said to be "toxic". You touch it, you better know what you are doing or else. This kind of regulation has a strong chilling effect on the budding founder. Countless web-startups were never created because the most common monetization model (ads) became basically illegal (for European startups only, US/Chinese competitors kept enjoying full freedom). > and a very small number of other applicable regulations But it's not a small number. And regulations have a cumulative effect. See, startups are like distance running. You know it's a hard thing, but you believe you can try to do it. But then regulations are like potholes. You run around a few, but the more potholes to avoid the harder the run, until your main job turns from running to avoiding potholes. Then you simply say "why bother" and give up. The more regulations you have, the more obstacles you put in front of startups, the fewer young people choose the entrepreneur path and decide to just get some bureaucratic job instead. This is the tragedy we are living in the EU right now, in the clapping of bureaucrats who never build a product or service in their entire life and do not understand what those damn entrepreneurs are complaining about.
- zenmac 1y ago
  >latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course. Normally I'm against overrgulation, but when it comes to privacy more fine for big corp is need if ANY violation is found. Rather NOT have AI than compromise on privacy.
  - nickpp 1y ago
    Interesting that you have privacy so high on your list of priorities. The general public usually considers other small thing like "cost" and "convenience" when thinking about privacy. Most of us actually don't mind losing a little privacy to read a news article when faced with the alternative of paying money or that news website ceasing to exist at all. But, hey, keep pushing your warped privacy sense onto all of us, I am sure you are right.
    - troupo 11mo ago
      Define "small amount of privacy". Is this a small amount: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452? BTW, when presented with clear non-dark-pattern choice 96% of people opt-out of "losing a little privacy": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
      - nickpp 11mo ago
        > Define "small amount of privacy". There is no universal measure for that, only each individual can answer the question for herself. GDPR is robbing people of that chance though. > Is this a small amount For me, yes. I already have a device in my pocket reporting my exact location to a private company at all times and I accepted that a long time ago. > 96% of people opt-out I bet they would chose very differently when the alternative is to pay or stop using the product. Just look how many people use privacy-destroying fidelity cards in supermarkets for some measly discounts.
- pornel 11mo ago
  I'm happy to burden EU companies with responsibilities like securing storage of my private data, having processes to update and delete my data, having to consider whether data collection can be minimized, and getting my consent if they want to repurpose or sell the data they've collected. It would be much cheaper and pro-business to let them collect everything and secure nothing.
pa7ch 1y ago
The regulation good/bad dichotomy has been very effective reducing the thinking of the constituents of modern neolibs in the US. On one end we have regulations as part of regulatory capture. Opposite effect of regulations that would help say a small business compete fairly.
pembrook 1y ago
Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity. Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols. For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but instead religious zeal.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Most criticism of GDPR on HN is a criticism of bad-faith attempts to pretend to comply, many of which are expressly forbidden by the GDPR. It's a well-written, plain English regulation, and I encourage everyone to read it before criticising it. (At the very least, point to the bits of the regulation you disagree with: it should only take around 5 minutes to look up.)
  - dijit 1y ago
    Hear hear. My company had consultants come in to help with GDPR, I left after months of them being hired: more confused than I went in. So I went to the source, and I found it surprisingly easy to read and quite clear. I think theres a lot of bad faith discussion about the GDPR being complex by people who have a financial interest in people disliking it (or, parroting what someone else said). Heres the full text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... 87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read.
    - vanviegen 1y ago
      > 87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read. That's some serious speed reading! :-)
    - xienze 1y ago
      20 minutes to “read” 87 dense pages of legalese? Perhaps you meant to say “skim over.”
idrios 1y ago
Regulations are like lines of code in a software project. They're good if well written, bad if not, and what matters more is how well they fit into the entire solution
- lucketone 1y ago
  And lines of code is like the mass of an airplane.
  - aallaall 1y ago
    Just put all code on one line then. Statements (or tokens) is what matters.
- samdoesnothing 1y ago
  In general you want as few as possible of both.
  - econ 1y ago
    You could also optimize everything for future updates that optimize things even further for even more updates... Humm.. that was supposed to be a joke but our law making dev team isn't all that productive to put it mildly. Perhaps some of that bloat would be a good thing until we are brave enough to do the full rewrite.
  - AceJohnny2 1y ago
    that's right. This is the reason all my code looks like an entry to PerlGolf. /s The world's complicated. "Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, and wrong" Simplicity is a laudable goal, but it's not always the one thing to optimize for.
    - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
      Ah, but "simplicity" is not necessarily "fewest lines of code". Code is first and foremost for human consumption. The compiler's job is to worry about appeasing the machine. (Of course, that's the normative ideal. In practice, the limits of compilers sometimes requires us to appease the architectural peculiarities of the machine, but this should be seen as an unfortunate deviation and should be documented for human readers when it occurs.)
jychang 1y ago
I strongly agree with this position. This is basically the foundation of Control Theory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory This is like arguing if "heater on" or "AC on" is better, which is a pointless argument. That entirely depends on what the temperature is!
- mk89 1y ago
  Reminds me of the book Thinking in Systems. Thanks for the link.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  And, at least in your example, sometimes you need both at the same time!
- bjourne 1y ago
  It is the perfect and correct antidote to any slippery slope argument. If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad as you say they will be then we adjust the law.
  - close04 1y ago
    > If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad This is the usual "the market will regulate itself" argument. It works when the imbalance arises organically, not so much when it's intentional on the side with more power and part of their larger roadmap. The conflict of interest needs to be accounted for. Consequences for whom? Think of initiatives like any generic backdooring of encrypted communication but legislators are exempt. If legislators aren't truly dogfooding the results of that law then there's no real "market pressure" to fix anything. There's only "deployment strategy", roll out the changes slowly enough that the people have time to acclimate. Control theory doesn't apply all that well to dynamical systems made entirely of human beings. You need psychohistory for that.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    > they will be then we adjust the law. Bizarrely horrible approach. A lot of damage would already be done, most importantly changing the status quo is inherently much harder than doing nothing. So going back won’t necessarily be straightforward. Claiming that “slippery slope” is always a fallacy is a gross misconception and misinterpretation. It varies case by case, very often it can be a perfectly rational argument. “Let’s restrict democracy and individual freedoms just a bit, maybe an authoritarian strongman is just what we need to get us out of this mess, we can always go back later..” “Let’s try scanning all personal communication in a non intrusive way, if it doesn’t solve CSAM problems we can always adjust the law”, right.. as if that was ever going to happen. Some lines need to be drawn that can never be crossed regardless of any good and well reasoned intentions.
ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
[flagged]
- int_19h 1y ago
  Stuff like e.g. ChatControl is also regulations, so no, it doesn't follow at all. If in practice the people doing the regulating don't have your interests in mind, more regulations is indeed bad.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    I didn't say "it's a regulation therefore it's good" I said "saying 'it's regulation therefore it's bad' is something bootlickers do"
winstonewert 1y ago
I think the real question has to be: how do we determine what the regulations should be. Today, regulations are typically the product of dysfunctional political processes, and, no surprise, a lot of those regulations are unhelpful and a lot of helpful regulations are absent.
fsckboy 1y ago
>I've stopped thinking of automobile repair as a single dial, where more automobile repair is bad or less automobile repair is bad. It entirely depends on what is being repaired and how. Some areas need more automobile repair, some areas need less. Some areas need altered automobile repairs. Some areas have just the right amount of automobile repair. Most automobile repairs can be improved, some more than others. you didn't really say anything
- array_key_first 1y ago
  Well you can't just replace a word with a different word and then act like things are the same. If you do choose to do that, you, at the very least, have to explain how 'automobile repair' and 'regulations' are analogous. Because in my mind, they are not. There are many, many people ideologically opposed to regulation. I've never met anyone ideologically opposed to auto repair, or even just opposed in general.
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    i could have chosen anything, you choose and do it. he didn't say anything at all. "i no longer consider these issues to be black and white [riffing on another comment], i now see it more nuanced, where some things need more of something and others need less of that thing. deep, no?"
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      Well he is saying something here, because as pointed out, many people approach this from an ideological place.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
  - fsckboy 1y ago
Razengan 1y ago
Seems like only AI could possibly keep track of all the practically countless variables involved in running human civilization now and keeping everyone happy.
_heimdall 1y ago
The challenge with regulation is that its the result of those in charge of a power imbalance being able to decide what is "good" PR "bad." Yes, some regulations will result in outcomes most might want and others may result in outcomes most don't want. In both cases, though, everyone not in power has to accept that they gave up some level of free will in hopes that those in charge will always wield that power well.
raverbashing 1y ago
I agree People bemoan bureaucracy (which is a totally fair criticism) without understanding its deeper meaning: Bureaucracy is how it works That's it. Digital government is also bureaucracy. Applying to YC is also bureaucracy. Of course the meaning drifted with the times, but it still means that First definition here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bureaucracy https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bureaucr...
brunojppb 1y ago
Based take. It is rarely back and white when it comes to social-technical challenges like this.
mattlutze 1y ago
When we let the market bubble-up protective conditions through buyer behavior, we advantage innovation at the cost of accepting more harms, because the market response is always reactive instead of proactive, and the reaction can sometimes take decades or more (like GHG emissions and global warming). When we let structural regulations assert protective conditions on a market, we try to advantage proactive harm reduction at the cost of innovation, because artificial market limitations will be barriers to innovation and create secondary game conditions that advantage some players. Which way we lean should depend on the type and severity of potential harms, especially with consideration of how permanent or non-reversible those harms are.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nickdothutton 1y ago
One of the problems with regulation is that politicians "understand" complex systems like computers or software or "the platforms" almost entirely by way of analogy. Yet at the point of actually introducing rules about (for example) tracking or what happens to your data, you need to throw away analogy entirely and start talking and thinking (and implementing) not an analogy but what the thing _actually_ is. Rarely do they resolve down to this last stage where you move from analogy to how things really work, or might work. I see this everywhere I have touched government and regulation over many years.
- johndhi 1y ago
  But how do you actually do that?
throwaway2037 11mo ago
I like this post. I was recently talking to a friend about using surveillance to improve recycling rates. The purpose of the discussion was not to advocate for more state-sponsored surveillance, but rather to imagine beneficial uses of surveillance. More to your point "more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad": Holy shit: Look at environmental protection laws. Consider the developed world in 1960 to today. The environment is night and day. It is so much cleaner and safer than ever. And, yes, most of those changes came about from regulations. I don't want to go back to a world where I come home from work in New York City and wipe my face clean in the mirror, and the tissue/towel comes away smudged with black & brown from soot in the air. (That is a true story that my mother told me from living in NYC in the 1970s.)

l5870uoo9y 1y ago

I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course, Draghi's report has led to nothing more than a few headlines.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
That 50% figure seems extremely dubious. I'd expect either methodological failures, or a definition of "costs" that I disagree with (e.g. fair-competition regulations preventing price-hikes, "costing" EU companies the profit they could obtain from a cartel). However, skimming the report (https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...), I can't find the 50% figure.
- l5870uoo9y 1y ago
  > Mario Draghi has argued that the EU's internal barriers, which are equivalent to a high tariff rate, cost more than external tariffs. He has cited IMF estimates that show these internal barriers are equivalent to a \(45\%\) tariff on manufactured goods and a \(110\%\) tariff on services. These internal market restrictions, which include regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy, hinder cross-border competition and have a significant negative impact on the EU's economy. Source: https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-...
  - palata 1y ago
    Sure, someone argues something. Who knows if it's right or wrong? It's not a hard science. How do you estimate the cost of regulations on businesses? You ask businesses. Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. "Just in case", they will say it hurts them. That is, until there is a de facto monopoly and they can't compete anymore, and at that point they start lobbying like crazy for... more regulations. Look at the drone industry: a chinese company, DJI, is light-years ahead of everybody else. What have US drone companies been doing in the last 5+ years? Begging for regulations. All that to say, it is pretty clear that no regulations is bad, and infinitely many regulations is bad. Now what's extremely difficult is to know what amount of regulation is good. And even that is simplistic: it's not about an amount of regulation, it depends on each one. The cookie hell is not a problem of regulations, it's a problem of businesses being arseholes. They know it sucks, they know they don't do anything with those cookies, but they still decide that their website will start with a goddamn cookie popup because... well because the sum of all those good humans working in those businesses results in businesses that are, themselves, big arseholes.
    - mr_toad 1y ago
      The number of regulations is not as important as the quality of those regulations. Shame we can’t regulate the quality of regulations.
      - KPGv2 1y ago
        The US actually has done this very thing since Reagan: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(Ronald_Reagan,_1981) https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(... That's an executive order (regulation) requiring proposed regulations undergo a cost-benefit analysis before being promulgated. It's why we got mandated backup cameras in cars: the cost-benefit analysis revealed the cost to have these in every new car was dwarfed by the cost in human lives of all the kids who were being run over in driveways bc they weren't visible behind cars.
        1y ago
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  I agree if we look at what has happened to the EU over the last 2 decades the costs have to be much higher. 50% seems optimistic at best for how far behind the EU has gotten.
  - 8note 1y ago
    should you filter out the covid era from that? coats have gotten higher, but across the board for different countries
- mnau 1y ago
  Seems pretty real. E.g. CRA official impact assessment estimates one-time (in addition to ongoing costs) compliance cost at €500K per one product. That is enough for 10 man years per product. And that is just one of many new regulations.
gessha 1y ago
I’m not saying the following regarding Draghi’s report or particular regulation in mind: If an unethical business gets started due to underregulation and it generates revenue and contributes to GDP, is that a good thing?
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  If the net social cost is less than the cost from overregulation, yes
  - gbanfalvi 1y ago
    Lmao you can’t be serious. This is something that can only be said if you can’t/won’t quantify social cost. Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Repealing Glass—Steagall led to a global financial crisis. Gig economy businesses are exploiting workers by the thousands through self employment loopholes. We have insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry. Worst of all is that we’ve likely doomed the entire planet based on what is effectively too little environmental regulation.
    - jack_tripper 1y ago
      >Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Yes, but gambling and all vices for that matter, are a centuries old issue that's well studied and well understood by everyone, while AI(hate that term in this case) LLMs are only an issue since November 2022, while most influential politicians are dumbass boomers who don't understand how a PC or the internet works let alone how LLMs work but yet are expected to make critical decisions on these topics. So then it's safe to assume that the politicians will either fudge up the regulations due to sheer cluelessness, or they will just make decisions based on what their most influential corporate lobbyists will tell them. Either way it's bad.
      - troupo 11mo ago
        ML and other automated systems are not new, and we know enough about automated systems to come up with regulations like "no, you should not use these in a certain set of specific circumstances" or "if you're unleashing this onto the world, you have to show that you understand what you're doing" etc.
jlarocco 1y ago
The logical extreme there is legalizing murder for hire, human trafficking, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. Privacy is in a different category altogether, but there's more to think about than just how much things cost companies.
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  That's a straight up slippery slope logical fallacy.
  - matthewdgreen 11mo ago
    We’ve had “legitimate” for-profit firms supplying authoritarian governments with phone malware that they allegedly used to spy on and sometimes murder their dissidents. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy, we’ve seen what happens if it isn’t guarded.
  - jlarocco 11mo ago
    That's technically true, but I was using it to prove my point that there's more to think about than company profits. Maybe I should have used dumping waste in a river and paying workers below minimum wage as examples. Profits could go up, but most people would agree it should still be illegal.
ikiris 1y ago
Ok let’s take this at face value. Not being able to use child labor is a 40%+ tariff. What have we gained by framing it as such other than an extremely biased take pro unregulated business?
- nickpp 1y ago
  Such unhinged takes are one of the reasons EU has fallen behind so much. Nobody is arguing for child labor. We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Yeah, regulation generally tries to do good but that is going to be little consolation when EU's economy will go broke because all products and services we consume are build in less-regulated territories (USA and China to be specific).
  - troupo 11mo ago
    > We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Oh no. How are you going to build your new ChatGPT wrapper without selling user data to thousands of "privacy-preserving partners"? GDPR (and a very small number of other applicable regulations) are somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. And unless you are a complete moron those regulations will maybe apply to you when you reach 10 million+ users.
    - nickpp 11mo ago
      > GDPR [...] somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. No. GDPR was presented as a company ending regulation. You make a mistake - you are doomed. The fines are in revenue percentages. User data was said to be "toxic". You touch it, you better know what you are doing or else. This kind of regulation has a strong chilling effect on the budding founder. Countless web-startups were never created because the most common monetization model (ads) became basically illegal (for European startups only, US/Chinese competitors kept enjoying full freedom). > and a very small number of other applicable regulations But it's not a small number. And regulations have a cumulative effect. See, startups are like distance running. You know it's a hard thing, but you believe you can try to do it. But then regulations are like potholes. You run around a few, but the more potholes to avoid the harder the run, until your main job turns from running to avoiding potholes. Then you simply say "why bother" and give up. The more regulations you have, the more obstacles you put in front of startups, the fewer young people choose the entrepreneur path and decide to just get some bureaucratic job instead. This is the tragedy we are living in the EU right now, in the clapping of bureaucrats who never build a product or service in their entire life and do not understand what those damn entrepreneurs are complaining about.
zenmac 1y ago
>latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course. Normally I'm against overrgulation, but when it comes to privacy more fine for big corp is need if ANY violation is found. Rather NOT have AI than compromise on privacy.
- nickpp 1y ago
  Interesting that you have privacy so high on your list of priorities. The general public usually considers other small thing like "cost" and "convenience" when thinking about privacy. Most of us actually don't mind losing a little privacy to read a news article when faced with the alternative of paying money or that news website ceasing to exist at all. But, hey, keep pushing your warped privacy sense onto all of us, I am sure you are right.
  - troupo 11mo ago
    Define "small amount of privacy". Is this a small amount: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452? BTW, when presented with clear non-dark-pattern choice 96% of people opt-out of "losing a little privacy": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
    - nickpp 11mo ago
      > Define "small amount of privacy". There is no universal measure for that, only each individual can answer the question for herself. GDPR is robbing people of that chance though. > Is this a small amount For me, yes. I already have a device in my pocket reporting my exact location to a private company at all times and I accepted that a long time ago. > 96% of people opt-out I bet they would chose very differently when the alternative is to pay or stop using the product. Just look how many people use privacy-destroying fidelity cards in supermarkets for some measly discounts.
pornel 11mo ago
I'm happy to burden EU companies with responsibilities like securing storage of my private data, having processes to update and delete my data, having to consider whether data collection can be minimized, and getting my consent if they want to repurpose or sell the data they've collected. It would be much cheaper and pro-business to let them collect everything and secure nothing.

pa7ch 1y ago

The regulation good/bad dichotomy has been very effective reducing the thinking of the constituents of modern neolibs in the US. On one end we have regulations as part of regulatory capture. Opposite effect of regulations that would help say a small business compete fairly.

pembrook 1y ago

Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity. Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols. For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but instead religious zeal.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
Most criticism of GDPR on HN is a criticism of bad-faith attempts to pretend to comply, many of which are expressly forbidden by the GDPR. It's a well-written, plain English regulation, and I encourage everyone to read it before criticising it. (At the very least, point to the bits of the regulation you disagree with: it should only take around 5 minutes to look up.)
- dijit 1y ago
  Hear hear. My company had consultants come in to help with GDPR, I left after months of them being hired: more confused than I went in. So I went to the source, and I found it surprisingly easy to read and quite clear. I think theres a lot of bad faith discussion about the GDPR being complex by people who have a financial interest in people disliking it (or, parroting what someone else said). Heres the full text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... 87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read.
  - vanviegen 1y ago
    > 87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read. That's some serious speed reading! :-)
  - xienze 1y ago
    20 minutes to “read” 87 dense pages of legalese? Perhaps you meant to say “skim over.”

idrios 1y ago

Regulations are like lines of code in a software project. They're good if well written, bad if not, and what matters more is how well they fit into the entire solution

lucketone 1y ago
And lines of code is like the mass of an airplane.
- aallaall 1y ago
  Just put all code on one line then. Statements (or tokens) is what matters.
samdoesnothing 1y ago
In general you want as few as possible of both.
- econ 1y ago
  You could also optimize everything for future updates that optimize things even further for even more updates... Humm.. that was supposed to be a joke but our law making dev team isn't all that productive to put it mildly. Perhaps some of that bloat would be a good thing until we are brave enough to do the full rewrite.
- AceJohnny2 1y ago
  that's right. This is the reason all my code looks like an entry to PerlGolf. /s The world's complicated. "Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, and wrong" Simplicity is a laudable goal, but it's not always the one thing to optimize for.
  - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
    Ah, but "simplicity" is not necessarily "fewest lines of code". Code is first and foremost for human consumption. The compiler's job is to worry about appeasing the machine. (Of course, that's the normative ideal. In practice, the limits of compilers sometimes requires us to appease the architectural peculiarities of the machine, but this should be seen as an unfortunate deviation and should be documented for human readers when it occurs.)

jychang 1y ago

I strongly agree with this position. This is basically the foundation of Control Theory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory This is like arguing if "heater on" or "AC on" is better, which is a pointless argument. That entirely depends on what the temperature is!

mk89 1y ago
Reminds me of the book Thinking in Systems. Thanks for the link.
SoftTalker 1y ago
And, at least in your example, sometimes you need both at the same time!
bjourne 1y ago
It is the perfect and correct antidote to any slippery slope argument. If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad as you say they will be then we adjust the law.
- close04 1y ago
  > If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad This is the usual "the market will regulate itself" argument. It works when the imbalance arises organically, not so much when it's intentional on the side with more power and part of their larger roadmap. The conflict of interest needs to be accounted for. Consequences for whom? Think of initiatives like any generic backdooring of encrypted communication but legislators are exempt. If legislators aren't truly dogfooding the results of that law then there's no real "market pressure" to fix anything. There's only "deployment strategy", roll out the changes slowly enough that the people have time to acclimate. Control theory doesn't apply all that well to dynamical systems made entirely of human beings. You need psychohistory for that.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  > they will be then we adjust the law. Bizarrely horrible approach. A lot of damage would already be done, most importantly changing the status quo is inherently much harder than doing nothing. So going back won’t necessarily be straightforward. Claiming that “slippery slope” is always a fallacy is a gross misconception and misinterpretation. It varies case by case, very often it can be a perfectly rational argument. “Let’s restrict democracy and individual freedoms just a bit, maybe an authoritarian strongman is just what we need to get us out of this mess, we can always go back later..” “Let’s try scanning all personal communication in a non intrusive way, if it doesn’t solve CSAM problems we can always adjust the law”, right.. as if that was ever going to happen. Some lines need to be drawn that can never be crossed regardless of any good and well reasoned intentions.

ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago

[flagged]

int_19h 1y ago
Stuff like e.g. ChatControl is also regulations, so no, it doesn't follow at all. If in practice the people doing the regulating don't have your interests in mind, more regulations is indeed bad.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  I didn't say "it's a regulation therefore it's good" I said "saying 'it's regulation therefore it's bad' is something bootlickers do"

winstonewert 1y ago

I think the real question has to be: how do we determine what the regulations should be. Today, regulations are typically the product of dysfunctional political processes, and, no surprise, a lot of those regulations are unhelpful and a lot of helpful regulations are absent.

fsckboy 1y ago

>I've stopped thinking of automobile repair as a single dial, where more automobile repair is bad or less automobile repair is bad. It entirely depends on what is being repaired and how. Some areas need more automobile repair, some areas need less. Some areas need altered automobile repairs. Some areas have just the right amount of automobile repair. Most automobile repairs can be improved, some more than others. you didn't really say anything

array_key_first 1y ago
Well you can't just replace a word with a different word and then act like things are the same. If you do choose to do that, you, at the very least, have to explain how 'automobile repair' and 'regulations' are analogous. Because in my mind, they are not. There are many, many people ideologically opposed to regulation. I've never met anyone ideologically opposed to auto repair, or even just opposed in general.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  i could have chosen anything, you choose and do it. he didn't say anything at all. "i no longer consider these issues to be black and white [riffing on another comment], i now see it more nuanced, where some things need more of something and others need less of that thing. deep, no?"
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    Well he is saying something here, because as pointed out, many people approach this from an ideological place.
ranger_danger 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
- fsckboy 1y ago

Razengan 1y ago

Seems like only AI could possibly keep track of all the practically countless variables involved in running human civilization now and keeping everyone happy.

_heimdall 1y ago

The challenge with regulation is that its the result of those in charge of a power imbalance being able to decide what is "good" PR "bad." Yes, some regulations will result in outcomes most might want and others may result in outcomes most don't want. In both cases, though, everyone not in power has to accept that they gave up some level of free will in hopes that those in charge will always wield that power well.

raverbashing 1y ago

I agree People bemoan bureaucracy (which is a totally fair criticism) without understanding its deeper meaning: Bureaucracy is how it works That's it. Digital government is also bureaucracy. Applying to YC is also bureaucracy. Of course the meaning drifted with the times, but it still means that First definition here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bureaucracy https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bureaucr...

brunojppb 1y ago

Based take. It is rarely back and white when it comes to social-technical challenges like this.

mattlutze 1y ago

When we let the market bubble-up protective conditions through buyer behavior, we advantage innovation at the cost of accepting more harms, because the market response is always reactive instead of proactive, and the reaction can sometimes take decades or more (like GHG emissions and global warming). When we let structural regulations assert protective conditions on a market, we try to advantage proactive harm reduction at the cost of innovation, because artificial market limitations will be barriers to innovation and create secondary game conditions that advantage some players. Which way we lean should depend on the type and severity of potential harms, especially with consideration of how permanent or non-reversible those harms are.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nickdothutton 1y ago

One of the problems with regulation is that politicians "understand" complex systems like computers or software or "the platforms" almost entirely by way of analogy. Yet at the point of actually introducing rules about (for example) tracking or what happens to your data, you need to throw away analogy entirely and start talking and thinking (and implementing) not an analogy but what the thing _actually_ is. Rarely do they resolve down to this last stage where you move from analogy to how things really work, or might work. I see this everywhere I have touched government and regulation over many years.

johndhi 1y ago
But how do you actually do that?

throwaway2037 11mo ago

I like this post. I was recently talking to a friend about using surveillance to improve recycling rates. The purpose of the discussion was not to advocate for more state-sponsored surveillance, but rather to imagine beneficial uses of surveillance. More to your point "more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad": Holy shit: Look at environmental protection laws. Consider the developed world in 1960 to today. The environment is night and day. It is so much cleaner and safer than ever. And, yes, most of those changes came about from regulations. I don't want to go back to a world where I come home from work in New York City and wipe my face clean in the mirror, and the tissue/towel comes away smudged with black & brown from soot in the air. (That is a true story that my mother told me from living in NYC in the 1970s.)