I’m sure most people who create regulations believe they’re making good ones.

What’s important is to assess whether the regulations had the intended result, and what the second and third order effects were. A lot of regulations, created in good faith, would fail this test.

▲

NotPractical 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. It would be one thing if they did an independent analysis on the outcomes of each regulation and arrived at an evidence-based conclusion (and even then it would still be very difficult or impossible to achieve objectivity).

But from what I can tell, it basically boils down to "let's just read the bullet points for each one and put it on the list if they sound good", which is misleading and even dangerous. Chat Control should be on the list by those standards.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Chat Control should be on the list by those standards

But it isn't, so maybe those aren't the standards?

	▲	jenadine 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It isn't because it is not yet accepted

▲

Epa095 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There seems to be a implicit assumption here that the world witouth the regulation is the 'natural' one, which should not be disturbed without good reason?

Not entailing regulations also has second and third order effects, and usually nobody is considering them (unless it can increase revenue).

▲

qcnguy 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, the default state of the world is unregulated. Why does that seem strange to you?

▲

Epa095 a day ago | parent [-]

It is more the 'and should not be disturbed'.

I did not grow up in the wild, and the default state of civilisation, even simple tribes, is certainly not unregulated. You are expected to take into account how your actions affect other people, and if you fail you will be sanctioned.

I perfectly understand people who wants little regulations. But my point is that choosing to not regulate something is also a choice, and for the big machine that is society, the fact that it's rooted in inaction does not make the outcome better, and thus not a better default either.

	▲	qcnguy a day ago \| parent [-]
		This is like the people who claim silence is violence or that everything is political. Not passing a law about something isn't normally a choice. There are infinity things you might conceivably not pass laws about, and you can't even think about them all. Leaving things undisturbed is the choiceless default, it happens even if no people are around, so focusing on something enough to disturb it is the choice. At best you can argue that if someone is agitating to pass a law then this forces your attention to a topic, and then - if your job requires you to respond - that then implies a choice of whether to agree with them or not. This is how lobbyists get what they want. But you can just not put yourself in that position.