What people are discovering is that tech + crowdsourced feedback loop is better than gov regulation. Feedback loop is faster, more thorough, and more reliable.

> What people are discovering is that tech + crowdsourced feedback loop is better than gov regulation. Feedback loop is faster, more thorough, and more reliable.

You have very little evidence that this is true.

And anecdotal data suggests that explicit "social ranking" introduces a whole host of other problems. See: the kerfuffle about AirBnB and renting to minorities.

What's the feedback loop for someone that lives next to a place being rented out on AirBnB?

Nothing, as long as the participants aren't violating the law. Much in the same way that you don't get any input on how long my grass is, unless it happens to be a fire hazard.

Actually, to the contrary, through things like town ordinances and homeowner's associations it is very likely that you do get to have input on how long your neighbor's grass is

My city has an ordinance for a fire hazard. It's established as a specific length. My neighbor does not get input on that, it either is, or is not, a violation of the city ordinance.

I got fined by the city once for "harboring rodents" because my neighbor felt my grass was too long (and was also a dick).

If there is a loud party, call the cops.

And when the cops are getting called every week what happens?

Congratulations. You just invented "zoning laws".

What people still fail to discover though, is that "crowdsourced feedback loop" is very vulnerable to companies with lots of money to spend on the so-called "growth hacking".

I think that is what the parent was suggesting. Those who want the government's evaluation can utilize the services offered by licensed providers, and those who want to do the evaluation themselves can choose whoever they want.

Except why do those licensed providers have to adhere to those laws, maybe they don't want to also?

As well, maybe it takes a while before the true societal risks are understood, AitBNB regulations may be too weak for some reason, but until we discover that, perhaps we've "unfairly" put some marginal hotels out of business that would have survived under the impending new legislation. (Hope that makes sense?)

They adhere to the laws to maintain their licensing to attract the consumers that demand that. As with now, customers pay a premium to have a certain standard certified for them, which benefits the service provider through higher incomes.

As I touched on a above, the thing about restricted markets is that price is able to rise artificially due to the unnaturally constrained supply. This ends up being a government subsidy; one that is disproportionally paid for by the poorest people. If you are already comfortable with subsidizing licensed businesses, why not continue to subsidize the marginal ones? Perhaps even in a way that is less impactful to the poorest people?