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
Politicians should take a mandatory one-week training in:

- very basic macro economics

- very basic game theory

- very basic statistics

Come to think of it, kids should learn this in high school

>>FredPr+Mo
I think you’re being overly charitable in thinking this happens because they don’t understand these things. The main thing is that they don’t care. The purpose of passing legislation to protect the children isn’t to protect the children, it’s to get reelected.

If we can get the voters to understand the things you mention, then maybe we’d have a chance.

>>wat100+jx
Lawmakers also make and pass laws because it's their job, not because a new law is needed. They feel it's literally their job to come up with new bills to pass, for no reason other than "it's my job".

Imagine a society so stable it doesn't need new laws or rules. All the elected representatives would just sit around all day and twiddle their thumbs. A bad look in their eyes.

This is how it should be of course.