This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I can easily commit to saying that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in the UK any time soon. But that's saying nothing given they're pretty much all American already for many other reasons.
Maybe some guy at Arm will have to add one more form to some pile or something.
Europe at large is a dying crab bucket that everybody who can make things is leaving because if you try you reap only taxes and lawsuits.
That's my concern. John Galt is my concern.
Yes and no. No chinesium lightbulb maker is ever going to bother with formally proving their code is correct because they don't care. But some connected things actually need to be secure so that you don't explode, catch on fire or get robbed.
I find the actually useful non gimmicky applications of IoT are in this latter category, and that for those the customer and the manufacturer usually know better than to cheap out.
Bruce Schnier noted that California had already implemented at least the number one item. Do you think that this is enough to also say that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in California any time soon?
I don't believe anything in this requirement is aimed at formal code verification methods. I don't think that's a requirement that is on the table anywhere, except for perhaps some niche customers (e.g., military/space). Probably not even at most "critical infrastructure" places that could blow up or whatever.
I mean, honestly, if that's about all you have to say for what results from this, that no chinesium lightbulb maker is going to meet a standard that hasn't been proposed and that some critical application spaces are going to pay for good stuff anyway, that's kind of a nothingburger? Like, abstract senses about Europe (not even the UK) and wild references to John Galt aren't really "concerns" that can be addressed in context of the very specific document that we have in front of us. It really seems like you just don't have any meaningful concern that we can investigate.
Nah, California has inertia and the funding apparatus there is still stronger than anywhere in the world, which is more meaningful. Not to mention the regulatory framework for innovation in general is looser in the US.
But it's telling that the companies that exist right now that fit the bill are also in Texas and Massachusetts these days, that used to be more rare. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some exodus. But it's probably down to the taxes than line items from small regulation.
You're forgetting automotive and think that energy grid infra is a lot looser than it actually is, but other than that it's broadly correct.
I think we're talking past each other. This regulation in and of itself is a nothingburger. It's the tendency I'm speaking to, which is what was alluded to in the OP.
Regulation is a dynamic process, it never stops at one law and very few of its slopes are not slippery.
In this house we discuss the Bailey, not the Motte.
Ok, cool. Then epsilon regulation doesn't instantly kill 100% of innovation.
Well, then we can probably dig back into the history books to find the first actual regulation that was placed on the tech industry. Whenever it was, it was in the past. The complaint that if we have epsilon regulation, it will definitely be a slippery slope to infinite regulation was valid then, but we're past that threshold now. Now, regulation is a dynamic process; the question is whether this regulation is part of a slippery slope toward infinite regulation, or if it's actually mostly basic shit that everyone has already known they should be doing anyway.
I mean, no? It's literally TheMotte. And this betrays that your reasoning doesn't even follow the Motte/Bailey dynamics. It was:
If anything, you're the one who is making bold, controversial statements (that innovation will grind to a halt, that no innovation happens anymore in any other industry that has any regulation). There's nothing comparable happening in the other direction. What even is the Bailey that you speak of?
EDIT: Your Bailey seems to be "an epsilon regulation grinds innovation down to zero". When someone challenges you on this, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, like, "Regulation is dynamic," but try to sneak in some not-fleshed-out argument about a slippery slope implying infinite regulation. When pulled back to reality, and you're challenged to engage with actually-existing regulation, you're actually pretty silent, unlike at least gattsuru, who at least engages with what's actually going on rather than fever dreams. Why isn't the vastly more reasonable view that you're engaging in a Motte/Bailey argument, while not being able to point to any sort of Bailey from the other side?
The fact that it's the wrong way around was remarked on at the time, newfriend.
But let me clarify since you're confused:
The Motte is "epsilon regulation doesn't instantly kill 100% of innovation", a very defensible claim. The Bailey is "I hear about [extensive compliance] from my friends in literally every other industry ever. They still seem capable of operating.", a controversial statement.
My own consistent position is that this regulation is a small advance that is inconsequential by itself but proceeds in a direction that is ultimately incompatible with innovation and that assenting to it is a slippery slope. I therefore oppose it in principle, much like I oppose other regulation that lead in the direction of encroachment of things that I cherish, no matter how reasonable it is.
You may say there are "reasonable" limits we can impose on free speech as well. I still oppose them no matter how reasonable they are.
You may then argue that slippery slope arguments are fallacious, to which I'll retort that they are only so when the slope isn't slippery, and that we have a veritable orgy of historical evidence that smaller regulation almost always lead to larger regulation.
This is a true statement about the world, not an outrageous claim, newfriend. You may be thinking that those words mean something other than what those words mean. What are you thinking they mean?
Great! We can surely then have a reasoned discussion about the nature of slippery slope arguments, trying to understand when they hold, to what extent they hold, and whether the premises required for them to have force are present here. I have never objected to the concept of a slippery slope arguments, but it does need some something behind it, otherwise it leaves us vulnerable to just any crazy extrapolation of anything in any domain. We probably wouldn't respond to, "Gay marriage is a slippery slope to marrying dogs!" with, "H-yup. All slippery slope arguments are perfectly valid and correct in all conclusions."
It's a true statement about your opinion. I disagree with your assessment of what "being capable of operating" entails, as we have gone over already.
it certainly does!
All it needs formally is demonstration that the slope is slippery. Which we can discuss in this case, but I don't really see the argument against given we have dozens of examples in this very specific field, and in other fields of engineering, of the complexity of regulation increasing to smothering levels from previously small demands. Automobiles, airplanes, even dishwashers, you can take your pick of examples.
Will you then disagree that government regulation is a slippery slope? And on what ground will you do so?
We discussed shale fracking. Now Space X, ozempic, Matt Levine gives tons of examples of financial innovation, we're damn close to self-driving cars, but the hol' up is the tech, not the regulation. The list goes on and on. I do not see any more content in your comment that is anywhere near suitable to claim that we can simply declare this "gone over already". If anything, you just dropped it, because your position didn't go anywhere.
Let's make sure we're on the same page here, so that we are at least confident that we're both actually really ready to engage the slippery slope question honestly, without leaving room for a retreat in this direction. Are other industries capable of operating with some amount of regulation? Not, "Is there a general sense of a regulation-innovation tradeoff?" We agree that there is. The straightforward statement that many other industries are capable of operating with some amount of regulation. Are you going to stick with the position that this is an outlandish Bailey? Or is it simply a true fact about the world, and we can shift the discussion toward slippery slopes?
Let's take a look at those survivors then.
Illegal in Europe at large.
Currently being sued for not respecting the contradictions between ITAR and the CRA.
Took three years to change the label of a drug that would never have been approved if they had to label it from scratch.
Most financial innovation is currently happening outside of regulation.
Technically very hard indeed, but I'm willing to bet they'll also become very hard legally once they start inevitably running people over.
On the whole, it seems hard to argue that these innovations are examples of regulation being compatible with or fostering innovation. They rather seem to exist despite it.
I'm willing to have the charity to shake on "there a general sense of a regulation-innovation tradeoff". This is true. The more regulation, the less innovation as a general rule, with some exceptions.
As for the second part of the argument, you haven't produced any reasoning as to why regulation isn't a slippery slope while I can point to the development of essentially any technology since 1940 to affirm it. From the dishwasher to the machine gun.
You seem ready to argue elsewhere in this thread that the very idea of the slope being slippery is ridiculous and unfounded and here you're dodging. I think that is bad faith and that you've done nothing but project objections to your antagonism onto those that criticize it here. That is isn't just unconvincing rhetoric, it's a waste of our time.
So instead let's actually do something productive and establish your position definitively: what is your positive theory of the interaction of regulation and innovation, does it have any limiting principle and how does it maintain the innovation cycle and competition in the face of the interests that inevitably act on it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link