Move fast and break things is bad policy for companies, I don't think it would be any better for the government.
The problem is when you move fast, break things, and then don't fix them. Hell, I'm even OK with being slow to roll things out to make sure you don't break things, just make sure your iteration time period is on the order of weeks or months, not years or decades.
The assumption is that introducing a bill to regulate dark patterns is the same as "moving fast". This bill hasn't even made it to committee [1] and darkpatterns.org was started in 2010 [2]. I think an argument could be made that the US government is actually moving pretty slowly on this topic. GDPR has been in place for over a year, so there is significant data to understand the implications of this type of regulation.
==and fix broken regulations later.==
How is this different from a software product releasing an updated version? Microsoft Excel is on v16 and I don't think anyone is accusing that product of moving fast and breaking things. I wish we spent more time adding features and fixing bugs from past legislation.
As to your second point, I also wish we spent more time adding features and fixing bugs from past legislation. I don't think that happens nearly enough, which is a major reason I don't trust our ability to just fix shoddy regulation after the fact.
The idea people seem to be repeating is that this will be ineffective. It seems to me that GDPR provides a pretty strong framework to learn from and build off. Europe effectively launched version 1.0, so now we can implement the best parts and eliminate or improve the weakest parts. We aren't starting from scratch or searching in the dark.
That’s terrible form. I’m sorry. No.
But to your point yes I did propose a similarly frameworked agency like the CFPB, but I’ll also offer that in another comment I had my mind changed on the affair after further discussion with another commenter here about policies already established and powers delegated to already existing Federal agencies.
I am suggesting that the perfect bill which requires no future fixes is non-existent. Thus, advocating for this solution is the equivalent of advocating for nothing. Just as building a product and showing it to nobody is functionally the same as not building a product from the rest-of-the-world's perspective.
Yes. But again, I've already conceded and abandoned this argument after being shown what I thought was good, well crafted policy with definitions, provisions and executions that I am willing to support in the context of this discussion. I happen to believe that all other things being established, context is important. Therefore I don't see the point in trying to refute your assertion of what I've said there, I did take that position, but I've since abandoned it, and conceded the point to a much better position than the one I had previously, therefore what I said earlier about "legislate first, fix later" holds no further relevance to this debate on policy, at least not IMO[1]
I am suggesting that the perfect bill which requires no future fixes is non-existent. Thus, advocating for this solution is the equivalent of advocating for nothing.
You still seem to be arguing against a position of "pass a perfect bill or no bill at all" that no one has made, and has not presented itself in the discussion, so to that note I'm not really sure how to respond.
[1] caveat lector: That being said, I do have strong opinions at large about incrementalism in policy design, but that's for another time and probably another forum.