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
I don't think these consequences are unintended.

>>from-n+KW
I recall some laws in the US (or california?) were based on the size of the company (in revenue $$)

Too bad this isn't the case here.

>>m463+NZ
Even when the fines or other punishments for non-compliance are relative to size/income/profit/etc, there are usually costs of compliance that do not similarly scale. Bigger companies can swallow them, independents can not, so regulatory capture can still be in effect.