> clearer safe harbors for small actors

Different rules for different people huh?

Just because you like the group you're benefiting and dislike the group you're harming doesn't mean that is good policy.

Not different rules for different people.

You would be subject to one rule for your small company and another rule as it grows.

This is everywhere in society, from expectation difference between babies, kids, teenagers, adults and seniors and to tax bracket structures.

The problem is that an intellectually consistent position of being against "different rules for different people" means everywhere, in everything.

For instance, poor people should not have any tax breaks: everyone should pay exactly the same percentage of their income, like 15% all across the board or whatever.

Such ideas often have regressive effects.

However, I get it. When it comes to handling personal information, you simply can't say that the "little guys" don't have to follow all the rules, and can cheerfully mishandle personal information in some way.

Small operators have simpler structures and information systems; it should be easier for them to comply and show compliance, you would think (and maybe some of the requirements in the area can be simplified rather than rules waived.)

Almost any corporate rule I am aware of has differences in how they apply depending on the size of the company. And as an entrepreneur and startup consultant I think that is a good principle. I don’t even see how society could function without it.

>Different rules for different people huh?

That’s how efficient market works. The bigger are the players, the higher are the chances they will distort the market. You need to apply the force proportional to size to return market back to equilibrium at maximum performance. We have anti-trust laws for this reason, so nothing new, nothing special.

Regulation is a moat designed by and benefitting big corporations. Removing it for small businesses specifically would actually be fair.

In literally no place in the world are the rules the same for running a multinational or running a lemonade stand. I feel this should be obvious.

I think most people agree that the state should be subject to harsher rules than you are, because it is large and powerful.

But you would actually prefer to be subject to the same rules as the state? I.e. typically nothing which isn't explicitly allowed is forbidden for you to do, you are forced to hand out copies of documents you produce, and so on?

> Different rules for different people huh?

Compliance has fixed costs. And smaller operations have a smaller blast radius when things go wrong. Reducing requirements for smaller operators makes sense.

It could, however, be good policy independent of personal preference.

I like folks who have to work for a living and dislike billionaires relaxing on yachts bought on their generational wealth, but in addition sociology metrics of the United States in the past 100 years suggest that the highest levels of happiness correlated pretty heavily with marginal tax rates as high as 100% based on wealth.