5 ms·

If your sole business model depends on having no regulation then your business model is wrong and predatory. Regulation doesn't hinder innovation, it's just th

If your sole business model depends on having no regulation then your business model is wrong and predatory. Regulation doesn't hinder innovation, it's just that CEOs want that quick buck instead of being responsible and using regulation for their advantage.

nozzlegear 2mo ago
Too much regulation completely crippled the supersonic commercial flight industry.
- bob001 2mo ago
  So most people not wanting to hear sonic booms to benefit a small group of high wealth fliers is bad?
  - xinayder 2mo ago
    Or having mandatory security checks in place after frequent accidents on supersonic planes is bad... The aviation industry must be one of the most regulated ones and it's entirely necessary to guarantee the safety of passengers and crew. You don't see anyone complaining about it except Boeing who failed QA in the past couple of years and killed some hundreds of people due to their oversight.
    - Ekaros 2mo ago
      Not to forget anyone below them. Aviation is one of the fields which can affect others in lot more than just immediate surrounding area. I don't live under much of flight path but still dropping planes and even parts of the planes are really not optimal.
    - bob001 1mo ago
      It used to be that living next to an airport was hell due to noise even without supersonic jets. Then they regulated noise levels and magically airplane companies started to find ways to mitigate noise levels. Such a coincidence that suddenly innovation just happened then and not ealirer. Who can guess why.
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    Perhaps if the industry had been allowed to develop, we'd have some freaky ass new and innovative tech that would've abated the problem. The world may never know!
    - vanviegen 2mo ago
      The industry was allowed to develop, but not allowed to cause harm.
      - nozzlegear 2mo ago
        Substitute develop with innovate and perhaps the thrust of my comment becomes more clear?
        vanviegen 2mo ago
        My reply still works when s/develop/innovate/. Companies were (and are) allowed to innovate in order to solve the blocking problems around supersonic flight. They just weren't allowed to ignore those blocking problems.
    - bob001 2mo ago
      So basically "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"? Yeah, no thank you. Also, all of corporate history shows that without a government or public pushback "will stop doing harm" never happens.
      - nozzlegear 2mo ago
        [flagged]
BobbyJo 2mo ago
This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.
- jmward01 2mo ago
  Quantity of regulation isn't the point. It is quality. The right regulations are the right regulations. They mitigate risks and can encourage innovation. 'too much/too little' arguments are almost universally wrong.
  - BobbyJo 2mo ago
    This is a good counterpoint.
- xinayder 2mo ago
  There is no AI regulation in the US and look at where we are, everyone depends on it, SOTA models are doing CSAM and porn deepfakes, and there's no regulation in the US to prevent this from happening nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.
  - vanviegen 2mo ago
    > There is no AI regulation in the US Well, there's the White House blocking models on a whim. I guess that's the closest they'll get to something resembling regulation.
  - BobbyJo 2mo ago
    IIRC, using AI for CSAM and deepfake porn of people is already illegal in the US. That's not so much a lack of law as a lack of a means of enforcement. If you sell people pens and paper, its pretty difficult to stop them from using it to do distasteful things.
FpUser 2mo ago
>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation" General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.
- xinayder 2mo ago
  As I said, and others pointed out: quality regulations don't curtail innovation. I repeat, if your business model (which like the big majority of the entrepreneurial world is based on) is against regulation, it's wrong. I don't think it's acceptable to have a billionaire tech bro dictating everything I do in my life while he gets rich by selling my data. One of the reasons regulation exists is to protect customers. It's about damn time the business world moved away from the capitalism mindset that you NEED to explore the consumer to be successful. We have a lot of examples in Europe where if the company is even a bit less shitty and is sympathetic to the customer, it increases trust and brings in more revenue because your customers trust it.
  - FpUser 1mo ago
    True Scotsman? I quoted what you said: >"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation" There is no "quality" in there. Try something better
- Rabbit504030201 2mo ago
  "Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart." That is "reductio ad absurdum". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    Identifying a fallacy but failing to address the argument doesn't negate the argument. This isn't high school debate class.
- cineticdaffodil 2mo ago
jstummbillig 2mo ago
> Regulation doesn't hinder innovation Regulation can and often most certainly does hinder innovation -- but we might want that, because we get other things we value in return. Regulation can sometimes also further innovation (one example being property rights). It depends on what is being regulated and how. I never understand why people make obviously false claims when trying to argue a position. Instead of making the bad case, just try a bit harder, like you ask of these CEOs, and make a good one.
m4xp 2mo ago
It does, it hinders competition, its really good if you are already enstablished.

nozzlegear 2mo ago

Too much regulation completely crippled the supersonic commercial flight industry.

bob001 2mo ago
So most people not wanting to hear sonic booms to benefit a small group of high wealth fliers is bad?
- xinayder 2mo ago
  Or having mandatory security checks in place after frequent accidents on supersonic planes is bad... The aviation industry must be one of the most regulated ones and it's entirely necessary to guarantee the safety of passengers and crew. You don't see anyone complaining about it except Boeing who failed QA in the past couple of years and killed some hundreds of people due to their oversight.
  - Ekaros 2mo ago
    Not to forget anyone below them. Aviation is one of the fields which can affect others in lot more than just immediate surrounding area. I don't live under much of flight path but still dropping planes and even parts of the planes are really not optimal.
  - bob001 1mo ago
    It used to be that living next to an airport was hell due to noise even without supersonic jets. Then they regulated noise levels and magically airplane companies started to find ways to mitigate noise levels. Such a coincidence that suddenly innovation just happened then and not ealirer. Who can guess why.
- nozzlegear 2mo ago
  Perhaps if the industry had been allowed to develop, we'd have some freaky ass new and innovative tech that would've abated the problem. The world may never know!
  - vanviegen 2mo ago
    The industry was allowed to develop, but not allowed to cause harm.
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      Substitute develop with innovate and perhaps the thrust of my comment becomes more clear?
      - vanviegen 2mo ago
        My reply still works when s/develop/innovate/. Companies were (and are) allowed to innovate in order to solve the blocking problems around supersonic flight. They just weren't allowed to ignore those blocking problems.
  - bob001 2mo ago
    So basically "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"? Yeah, no thank you. Also, all of corporate history shows that without a government or public pushback "will stop doing harm" never happens.
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      [flagged]

BobbyJo 2mo ago

This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.

jmward01 2mo ago
Quantity of regulation isn't the point. It is quality. The right regulations are the right regulations. They mitigate risks and can encourage innovation. 'too much/too little' arguments are almost universally wrong.
- BobbyJo 2mo ago
  This is a good counterpoint.
xinayder 2mo ago
There is no AI regulation in the US and look at where we are, everyone depends on it, SOTA models are doing CSAM and porn deepfakes, and there's no regulation in the US to prevent this from happening nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.
- vanviegen 2mo ago
  > There is no AI regulation in the US Well, there's the White House blocking models on a whim. I guess that's the closest they'll get to something resembling regulation.
- BobbyJo 2mo ago
  IIRC, using AI for CSAM and deepfake porn of people is already illegal in the US. That's not so much a lack of law as a lack of a means of enforcement. If you sell people pens and paper, its pretty difficult to stop them from using it to do distasteful things.

FpUser 2mo ago

>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation" General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.

xinayder 2mo ago
As I said, and others pointed out: quality regulations don't curtail innovation. I repeat, if your business model (which like the big majority of the entrepreneurial world is based on) is against regulation, it's wrong. I don't think it's acceptable to have a billionaire tech bro dictating everything I do in my life while he gets rich by selling my data. One of the reasons regulation exists is to protect customers. It's about damn time the business world moved away from the capitalism mindset that you NEED to explore the consumer to be successful. We have a lot of examples in Europe where if the company is even a bit less shitty and is sympathetic to the customer, it increases trust and brings in more revenue because your customers trust it.
- FpUser 1mo ago
  True Scotsman? I quoted what you said: >"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation" There is no "quality" in there. Try something better
Rabbit504030201 2mo ago
"Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart." That is "reductio ad absurdum". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- nozzlegear 2mo ago
  Identifying a fallacy but failing to address the argument doesn't negate the argument. This isn't high school debate class.
cineticdaffodil 2mo ago

jstummbillig 2mo ago

> Regulation doesn't hinder innovation Regulation can and often most certainly does hinder innovation -- but we might want that, because we get other things we value in return. Regulation can sometimes also further innovation (one example being property rights). It depends on what is being regulated and how. I never understand why people make obviously false claims when trying to argue a position. Instead of making the bad case, just try a bit harder, like you ask of these CEOs, and make a good one.

m4xp 2mo ago

It does, it hinders competition, its really good if you are already enstablished.