Late night tweetstorm time. It seems that nearly everyone believes that regulation at a certain point hinders innovation, but I think almost everyone underestimates their net effect
-
-
But what I think is interesting, as
@patrickc points out, is the next layer where there may be the likes of Uber or Airbnb that just got squashed by regulation that we never heard about, or we conclude they killed some “unsafe” practiceShow this thread -
Yet if we go even deeper (call it galaxy brain if you must) there are companies that aren’t started or invested in for fear of regulation
Show this thread -
Some of those are obvious, e.g. a company doing something that needs FDA approval requires $100m in investment when the actual tech might require $10m, but we even see it at Lambda School, in a relatively less-regulated space
Show this thread -
In fact I suspect the net effect of regulation is actually greater when the regulations aren’t well-defined, because it stops people from trying. It’s awfully difficult to build around something that doesn’t have clear precedent, which is almost everything interesting
Show this thread -
The risk there is company-ending, and causes an odd scenario: well established companies are unwilling to take such risks, which leaves only newer and more relatively shady companies doing those things
Show this thread -
I think we’re seeing this to some degree in ICOs. Legit companies aren’t going to act without precedent and existing case law from the SEC, so we’re left with new companies and sheisters hawking 99% bullshit, to the point that almost everyone says “ya just shut out down”
Show this thread -
Interestingly some of the most impressive startups I see nowadays are entering heavily regulated spaces. There’s such an enormous moat when you make it through that it’s worth a shot, but it takes a founder willing to spend 80% of effort dealing w regulators and 20% w tech
Show this thread -
It may be to some degree that all the easy stuff has been done, but in my YC group at least 50% of the companies we’re going up against serious regulatory risk; the kind that’s difficult to define, understand, prepare for, or hedge against
Show this thread -
I know this would never happen in a billion years, but if you wanted to truly unlock innovation you would have to have regulators more frequently *bless* some practices, not just condemn them. A stamp of approval, not “they haven’t killed x yet so let’s assume it’s safe”
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Berlin cracked down on Airbnb because landlords would put an apartment up there rather than seek a traditional tenant which was leading to artificial housing scarcity.
-
Uber using venture capital dollars to unsustainably undercut competition (taxis, lyft, etc.) is straight out of Rockefeller's 19th century playbook.
-
I think these companies, markets, etc are still playing out and, even ignoring entrenched interests, the jury will be out on net positive or net negative for at least another decade.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You lost me at "quite obviously a net positive to everyone."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do you really believe this? When you read about Uber's wage practices, increased congestion, eroding support for mass transit, greyball, and so on, do you really, *honestly* believe that they're only bad for taxi companies?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Uber and AirBnb ... obviously a net positive to everyone" what white male fact-free feel good bullshit is Twitter up to late at night?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
whoa there buddy… not true at all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.