3 ms·
It can, but I don't think these will. It looks like this dialogue is already framed in "regulation vs no regulation" without much depth. I think that a long dra
by Arnor 12y ago
It can, but I don't think these will. It looks like this dialogue is already framed in "regulation vs no regulation" without much depth. I think that a long drawn-out discussion among professionals would be more effective (if slower than) sound-byte politics.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> It looks like this dialogue is already framed in "regulation vs no regulation" without much depth If you read even the news articles on this particular proposal you'd see that's not the case: (1) There are people who are simply set against regulation, (2) There are people who believe regulation is necessary, and favor the status quo of state-by-state regulation without federal regulation, (3) There are people who believe regulation is necessary, see value in federal regulation, but are concerned that federal regulation may be counterproductive if it fails to be as good as some of the existing state regulations and preempts them, (4) There are people who believe regulation is necessary, but that patchwork state-by-state regulation is itself counterproductive, so that it is important that consistent regulation be adopted at the federal level. And there are fairly sophisticated arguments for all those positions. > I think that a long drawn-out discussion among professionals would be more effective (if slower than) sound-byte politics. This proposal is one of the products of the decades-long drawn-out discussion among professionals (and others) that have been going on about this issue (which has intensified in the last 1-2 decades with the growth of online commerce, but started long before that.)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]