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
This is what Javier Milei means when he says that everything politicians touch turns to shit and therefor government should be minimal.

>>bboygr+FQ
Isn’t that a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Many regulations serve to protect individuals and the environment, both of which might otherwise be overlooked in favor of corporate profits fighting in the free market. I'm afraid that when advocates of minimal government push their agenda, they often envision a level of reduction far beyond what most people would find acceptable. In situations like the one under discussion, I believe improving the regulation would be a better approach than eliminating it entirely.