3 ms·

>Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases. And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton

>Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases. And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton of regulation. >Chemical A is found to be cancerous Chemical A is assumed to be cancerous by the state of California, you mean?

autoexec 5mo ago
> And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton of regulation. I'll bet a ton of that regulation is insufficient, and/or paid for, or even written by, the industry to make it harder for competitors or to allow them to increase their profits by cutting corners. Regulation isn't some on/off switch that always makes things better or worse. What matters is what those regulations are and who they serve.
- protocolture 5mo ago
  Yep and I bet if I reviewed every bit of it line by line I couldnt convince many people to remove any of it. Because Regulation might not be an on/off switch but Deregulation is a complete hard no for most people.
  - autoexec 5mo ago
    I'd agree that deregulation is a complete hard no for most people, but that's because removing bad/watered down regulation isn't enough. Calling for "deregulation" is like saying "defund the police". A very small number of radicals claim to actually want that, but most people think that something better has to fill the void. Bad regulation needs to be replaced by good regulation. If what you mean by "Deregulation" is "different/better regulation" most people will happily support it. For example, most people would love to have the government just automatically mail them their tax refunds with the paperwork they need to verify it was correct. Standing in their way are companies who have been spending a lot of money on bribes to make sure filing our taxes is as expensive and difficult as possible (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-spend-millions-lobbying-us-keep-doing-n736386 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-sp...)
    - protocolture 5mo ago
      There was a pretty decent campaign locally to make it legal to deliver fixed line broadband services. But once you convince someone that the legislation exists and the penalties exist for supplying fixed line broadband services, the next goal posts slide into place, and they reflexively defend the idea that the government would fine people more for overbuilding the national carrier to a greater extent than importing several kilos of cocaine. They parrot absolutely bonkers shit like "Internet is a natural monopoly" when they literally have to fine people to make it a monopoly. Most people defend the status quo with extreme vigor. And most people aren't even slightly qualified to analyse the status quo. The supplied alternative doesnt matter. Some person they dont know, doing something they are ambivalent about might find their profession easier. Thats completely verboten.
      - autoexec 5mo ago
        Are you sure that the "Internet is a natural monopoly" people were actually people and not just bots and shills? The only reason I could see real people wanting a monopoly would be if they were pushing for the government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines. There's a case that it doesn't make sense to have 50 different companies all running physical cables everywhere. What doesn't make sense is only allowing one private company to do it and leaving yourself at their mercy.
        protocolture 5mo ago
        The australian disease is the great big national thing. The only time this concept has ever worked for us is Medicare, and secretly thats actually managed on the state level with national funding. >government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines. We had loosely: 1. Government telco ran copper everywhere, did a shit job of it, they are still replacing faulty gel joints. 2. Government sold said telco, with a monopoly on fixed line internet services. 3. Newly private telco did fuck all and basically existed for a while. 4. The government mandated that they permit ULL resale, basically renting access to their monopolised cabling 5. Australia had its greatest % increase in internet speed as lots of small players started dropping DSLAMS on their exchanges and exchanging peering. 6. That fizzled out, and we reached the limits of what could possibly be done with copper in the short term. 7. Instead of looking at what worked historically (ULL) they decided to build a brand new giant government telco with a fixed line monopoly (ripping it away from the last guys). Average punter has no long term memory and thinks that repeating the original sin with Fibre instead of copper has literally no downside. 8. Because this is a NEW NATIONAL thing, chumps, of which there are plenty, will defend it without any analysis deeper than "My fibre works fine" 9. One of our larger private carriers took the National Carrier to court arguing that the law was anticompetitive. They settled out of court and the law wasnt changed. However, the industry has continued in sort of a grey area where the national carrier hasnt formally complained about any of its competition but it could still do so and fines would be issued. 10. Several government MP's floated the idea, all at once, that the government should compulsorily acquire every other fixed line telco network in the country. 6 weeks later they stopped saying that. Its in policy limbo, largely because their justification was that the National telco was better somehow, but upon reflection they probably realised that the national telco was the only telco excluded from customer protections and things would be worse for customers overall if they lost their private alternatives. But thats where their brain is at. Rather than the fines, they will probably just use the threat of fines at some stage to forcibly acquire other networks. Which will be a long, expensive, and overall shitty experience for customers. The public will clap and cheer when the evil private networks (many of which are far better in speed and quality than the national carrier) get absorbed.
pbhjpbhj 5mo ago
Are you alleging that California claims stuff to be carcinogenic without evidence? Do you have a supposed motive? Any evidence? Whilst it's a bit of a meme, isn't it just true that a lot of stuff is carcinogenic.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  California’s threshold is far too low to be useful. The end result is basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue
  - PaulHoule 5mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide is the one that gets me. Fried snacks from Asia frequently have a Prop 65 warning. Thing is it is produced by ordinary cooking techniques from ordinary and can be found in both traditional and ultra-processed foods.
- voakbasda 5mo ago
  Well, the “experts” say a charred steak is carcinogenic. At that point, I stopped listening to anything out of their mouths. It might be true, but it’s also a matter of degree. California has set such a low threshold that one cannot take their label seriously about anything. It applies to nearly everything, making it effectively a useless warning.
  - lanstin 5mo ago
    It also never lists the specific substances nor what one can do about it (not enter the building, don’t lick the ceiling, wear a mask, whatever). Good intentioned but utterly useless.
  - robocat 5mo ago
    In the seventies, the view was often expressed to me by lay audiences that there was no point in stopping smoking, since everything was a carcinogen and so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable. This view was certainly pushed by the tobacco companies with the bizarre support of many environmentalists, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273230087900493 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273230087... Also see carcinization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

autoexec 5mo ago

> And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton of regulation. I'll bet a ton of that regulation is insufficient, and/or paid for, or even written by, the industry to make it harder for competitors or to allow them to increase their profits by cutting corners. Regulation isn't some on/off switch that always makes things better or worse. What matters is what those regulations are and who they serve.

protocolture 5mo ago
Yep and I bet if I reviewed every bit of it line by line I couldnt convince many people to remove any of it. Because Regulation might not be an on/off switch but Deregulation is a complete hard no for most people.
- autoexec 5mo ago
  I'd agree that deregulation is a complete hard no for most people, but that's because removing bad/watered down regulation isn't enough. Calling for "deregulation" is like saying "defund the police". A very small number of radicals claim to actually want that, but most people think that something better has to fill the void. Bad regulation needs to be replaced by good regulation. If what you mean by "Deregulation" is "different/better regulation" most people will happily support it. For example, most people would love to have the government just automatically mail them their tax refunds with the paperwork they need to verify it was correct. Standing in their way are companies who have been spending a lot of money on bribes to make sure filing our taxes is as expensive and difficult as possible (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-spend-millions-lobbying-us-keep-doing-n736386 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-sp...)
  - protocolture 5mo ago
    There was a pretty decent campaign locally to make it legal to deliver fixed line broadband services. But once you convince someone that the legislation exists and the penalties exist for supplying fixed line broadband services, the next goal posts slide into place, and they reflexively defend the idea that the government would fine people more for overbuilding the national carrier to a greater extent than importing several kilos of cocaine. They parrot absolutely bonkers shit like "Internet is a natural monopoly" when they literally have to fine people to make it a monopoly. Most people defend the status quo with extreme vigor. And most people aren't even slightly qualified to analyse the status quo. The supplied alternative doesnt matter. Some person they dont know, doing something they are ambivalent about might find their profession easier. Thats completely verboten.
    - autoexec 5mo ago
      Are you sure that the "Internet is a natural monopoly" people were actually people and not just bots and shills? The only reason I could see real people wanting a monopoly would be if they were pushing for the government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines. There's a case that it doesn't make sense to have 50 different companies all running physical cables everywhere. What doesn't make sense is only allowing one private company to do it and leaving yourself at their mercy.
      - protocolture 5mo ago
        The australian disease is the great big national thing. The only time this concept has ever worked for us is Medicare, and secretly thats actually managed on the state level with national funding. >government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines. We had loosely: 1. Government telco ran copper everywhere, did a shit job of it, they are still replacing faulty gel joints. 2. Government sold said telco, with a monopoly on fixed line internet services. 3. Newly private telco did fuck all and basically existed for a while. 4. The government mandated that they permit ULL resale, basically renting access to their monopolised cabling 5. Australia had its greatest % increase in internet speed as lots of small players started dropping DSLAMS on their exchanges and exchanging peering. 6. That fizzled out, and we reached the limits of what could possibly be done with copper in the short term. 7. Instead of looking at what worked historically (ULL) they decided to build a brand new giant government telco with a fixed line monopoly (ripping it away from the last guys). Average punter has no long term memory and thinks that repeating the original sin with Fibre instead of copper has literally no downside. 8. Because this is a NEW NATIONAL thing, chumps, of which there are plenty, will defend it without any analysis deeper than "My fibre works fine" 9. One of our larger private carriers took the National Carrier to court arguing that the law was anticompetitive. They settled out of court and the law wasnt changed. However, the industry has continued in sort of a grey area where the national carrier hasnt formally complained about any of its competition but it could still do so and fines would be issued. 10. Several government MP's floated the idea, all at once, that the government should compulsorily acquire every other fixed line telco network in the country. 6 weeks later they stopped saying that. Its in policy limbo, largely because their justification was that the National telco was better somehow, but upon reflection they probably realised that the national telco was the only telco excluded from customer protections and things would be worse for customers overall if they lost their private alternatives. But thats where their brain is at. Rather than the fines, they will probably just use the threat of fines at some stage to forcibly acquire other networks. Which will be a long, expensive, and overall shitty experience for customers. The public will clap and cheer when the evil private networks (many of which are far better in speed and quality than the national carrier) get absorbed.

pbhjpbhj 5mo ago

Are you alleging that California claims stuff to be carcinogenic without evidence? Do you have a supposed motive? Any evidence? Whilst it's a bit of a meme, isn't it just true that a lot of stuff is carcinogenic.

ceejayoz 5mo ago
California’s threshold is far too low to be useful. The end result is basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue
- PaulHoule 5mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide is the one that gets me. Fried snacks from Asia frequently have a Prop 65 warning. Thing is it is produced by ordinary cooking techniques from ordinary and can be found in both traditional and ultra-processed foods.
voakbasda 5mo ago
Well, the “experts” say a charred steak is carcinogenic. At that point, I stopped listening to anything out of their mouths. It might be true, but it’s also a matter of degree. California has set such a low threshold that one cannot take their label seriously about anything. It applies to nearly everything, making it effectively a useless warning.
- lanstin 5mo ago
  It also never lists the specific substances nor what one can do about it (not enter the building, don’t lick the ceiling, wear a mask, whatever). Good intentioned but utterly useless.
- robocat 5mo ago
  In the seventies, the view was often expressed to me by lay audiences that there was no point in stopping smoking, since everything was a carcinogen and so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable. This view was certainly pushed by the tobacco companies with the bizarre support of many environmentalists, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273230087900493 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273230087... Also see carcinization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation