It bears repeating - all markets get regulated.

Markets, left to their own devices, do not end up automatically being competitive in favor of consumers.

But above all, if AI wasn’t hyped as a threat to humanity, to jobs, to security, regulation could have been cautious.

To add insult to injury, given how voters are tired of technology, expecting a different move from governments is a losing bet.

▲

ywvcbk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Markets, left to their own devices, do not end up automatically being competitive in favor of consumers.

True. Does not mean all regulation is increases competition and marker efficiency by default. If anything EU has long abandoned the core tenets of Ordoliberalism and "Social Market Economy"

▲

nickpp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And it bears repeating: regulation (even well meaning regulation) is not free and it always favors incumbents and hinders startups.

	▲	intended 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. This is always going to be the case, because regulation is typically a form of friction. It is the shape of regulation that matters, and ideology on either side of the divide is religion. Good regulation and regulators would punish anti competitive behavior, but this will also act as a drag on firms, while preventing firms from reaching certain sizes and potential economies of scale. The point is that regulation deserves to be understood and crafted well. Those economies of scale are meaningless to consumers if it means a single firm squeezes everyone in the supply chain and captures the benefit for itself. This is also a specific weakness in American conversations. The divide between free markets, competition, and regulation are ideological. If you want good markets you need good regulation and incentive structuring.

▲

21asdffdsa12 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And in the long run, regulated market companies win out- while the de-regulated ones decay and enshittify. Boeing vs Airbus comes to mind.

▲

nickpp an hour ago | parent [-]

Great example. An highly regulated field (aerospace) put so many barriers of entry for startups and competition that the incumbents simple have to reason to innovate or even compete anymore.

I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened.

	▲	notahacker 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened. I heard that this is nonsense. There never were more than a handful of large aircraft builders (still are plenty of small ones), safety records certainly weren't better in the era before consolidation, and new entrants funded by the might of their governments have failed not because of regulation but because what airlines actually want is lots of identical aircraft from a reliable supplier and the new entrants haven't really been competitive in terms of performance either. The certification is complex, but so's building an aircraft, and it's really only the people further down the supply chain that need the protective umbrella...

▲

blfr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right now the weakly regulated American market is delivering staggering competition where massive corporations are fighting tooth and nail over my 100 bucks.

I kept hearing the same about previous age tech and there also Americans rule the Internet: Google Search, Workspace or m365, AWS, Cloudflare... Even Linus moved to the US.

▲

vichle an hour ago | parent [-]

They've been pretty efficient in squashing any potential competition because of that weak regulation, yes. Don't confuse it with competing on the merits of their products.

	▲	blfr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Why hasn't strong competition arise from well-regulated EU? Where are the superior European products? I'd gladly use them.

▲

prolly97 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a big difference between governments regulating to benefit their own control and power, and regulating in favor of consumers. Most regulation in the EU have jack-all to do with consumers. There's a couple of niceties - having all prices displayed in comparable unites (EUR/kg, EUR/liter etc). But apart from that the regulation have broadly served as moats around the largest businesses.

▲

boonzeet 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are many EU directives which benefit consumers directly in tech, including, but not limited to:

Consumer rights - 14 day cooling off period for online purchases

Sale of goods - 2 year seller liability for defective goods

Right to repair - likely doesn’t need explanation, require manufacturers to offer repairs and replacement parts

Unfair commercial practices - prevent misleading or deceptive advertising

Unfair contract terms directive - prevents disproportionately one-sided provisions in T&Cs (think Disney giving themselves legal immunity for a free Disney+ trial)

The EU’s problem seems to be in communicating its benefits to its citizens.

	▲	ricardobayes 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wouldn't even call it a communication problem - I believe it's more a media problem, than anything. Good news are minimized and bad news are amplified to the maximum - nowadays even broadsheet newspapers operate with tabloid headlines, and that is really bad. We somehow need to "want" a slower news cycle and simultaneously push back against the algorithmic outrage. The world is more predictable and safer than ever but the perception of the average person is not this, it's manufactured outrage at every possible opportunity and topic. Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago, almost none feel that way and that is almost 100% due to the news algorithms being tuned to keep you in a constant dread cycle.
	▲	nickpp an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> cooling off [...] seller liability [...] Right to repair Let's not forget I am paying directly for those when I buy a product. Those benefits are not free, they cost money. The money has to come from somewhere. It can't come from profits (since those are the sacred reason the company exists in the first place) thus they will come from higher prices. Higher product prices mean less competitive companies. It also means fewer startups which must implement the required regulation no matter the market says. Then you need protectionism against Chinese competition. But the worst is that I must pay for those benefits whether if I want them or not. Thus my choice is reduced. I cannot vote with my wallet and send price signals in the market to tell sellers that I want those benefits or not and at what price. The market gets corrupted. The economy falters. Outside competitors gain. The Government needs to intervene again and again, growing stronger and more intrusive "for my own benefit". It's the decay spiral we are witnessing here in the EU right now.

▲

pdhborges 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you believe I can't get a list of 20 effective pro-consumer regulations drafted by the EU out of Gemini?

	▲	nickpp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe you should get that list from the European AI products that came from those awesome EU regulations.

▲

vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not even true in the concrete case we're talking about here.

As part of the AI Act, an important decision on a person (such as a hiring decision) cannot be made without human involvement.

You think that's not in favor of "consumers"? (also note the implicitly submissive framing of humans as receptacles for consumption instead of subjects with rights!)