Comment by lorddoig | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lorddoig | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Take the number of times you've heard the sentiment "and this will protect consumers! yay!" - call it h (for hope). Now take the number of times you've heard such sentiments be justified in a logical, rigorous manner - call it j.

Calculate an independent thought index, t, as follows: j / h.

Call me if it's greater than 0.01. I'll be over here in the corner watching as we entrench half- (or hundredth-?)baked ideas into statute books that don't change for decades.

The economic damage of these petty regs (enforcement, compliance, cognitive load on businesses, yadda yadda) far outstrips that which brought them into existence in the first place - that I'd put my life on (but good luck actually measuring it.)

These kinds of 'consumer protection' laws are exactly the reason why the UK only has 5 major banks operating as a government-backed cartel - the laws became so complex that the market is impossible to enter now. Just ask Richard Branson - he wanted a bank for a long time, but the only way he could get one was to buy a preexisting one. This argument extends almost verbatim to the insurance and payment processing (and more) industries.

The internet is what it is because it has been almost completely free (as in liberal) and had very low barriers to entry up until very recently. The day I have to fill in a government form to open a webshop else fear prosecution is the day we let another good thing die - and shit like this is a big step down that road.

I find it really, really hard to give a crap about the poor ickle businesses in this case, because you're not going to trip over these laws unless you're going out of your way to do something sneaky.

If you enter into it with good faith, i.e. be as forthright as possible with your customer, you won't end up in a situation where these laws will ever apply to you.

The people that will have a massive "cognitive load" are those who see the regulations as barriers and impediments to be worked around.

Things such as "Don't insert shit into your customer's cart that they didn't explicitly and knowingly request" is one example of the regulation, and is dead simple to both comprehend and implement. The intent and practical application of this particular piece of this particular regulation is crystal clear, and will only be muddied by people who like to rules lawyer terms like "explicitly and knowingly request". I know what it means. You know what it means. Every person with a functioning set of brain cells knows what it means. Shady companies will have a hard time with this.

laws should be based on logic and not emotion. unfortunately I doubt anyone will campaign against this and if they do they will be portrayed as pro-cronyism or that they are somehow for the things that this measure aims to prevent.

the UK seems fond of things like this though. As I recall you must be 18 years old to buy a plastic knife, as it is considered a deadly weapon.

Although that sounds completely believable, I think in this instance it's only sharp knives over a certain length, and if I'm not mistaken I think the age 16. But never fear, HM Government will no doubt fall over themselves trying to appease the relatives of the one teenager who managed to gouge their own brain out with a plastic knife (when it happens).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com