zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? For example:

Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse fuel economy.

or

Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.

As the article itself says: Hold big tech accountable -> Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be able to comply -> Big tech goes on, but indie tech forced offline.

>>Markus+6j
Laws are meant to be dynamic. So you iterate on them as you get feedback from their implementation

>>whatev+Pp
> Laws are meant to be dynamic.

The US Supreme Court disagrees. https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2024/july/3/-/m...

>>bryanl+0y
The Supreme Court hasn’t and can’t say anything against laws being updated and changed. What they have prevented is those we have elected to make laws delegating that very authority to others.

>>jtbayl+gz
Which in practice means that laws are not going to be updated and changed.